APR   28  1993 


•-»' 


I*  •* 


What    Do 

Reformed  Episcopalians 

Believe? 


Eight  Sermons  preached  in 
Christ  Church,  Chicago, 


BY- 


Rt.  Rev.  CHARLES  EDWARD  CHENEY,  D.  D., 

Bishop  of  ihe  Synod  of  Chicago, 


^m  Of  «M«^ 


APR  28  W3 

Issued  "by 

REFol|^l!!9bB|ttscoPA^PuBU£^gP^^iETY,  Limited, 

'i 604  C "sfnut  ^^^^pmiadclphia. 

(Copyrighted,  1888.) 


TO  MY  BELOVED  WIFE, 

"Whose  intelligent  loyalty  to  the  Principles,  and 
Steadfast  devotion  to  the  Interests  of 

The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church, 

Suggested  the  preparation  of  this  little  volume,  it  is 
Affectionately  Inscribed  by 

Her  Husband. 


■^'^  .^, 


(a) 


PREKACE. 


The  necessity  for  some  work  of  a  character  similar  to 
the  following  sermons,  constitutes  the  only  apology  for 
their  publication. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  a  Church  which  has 
only  had  a  separate  life  of  fourteen  years,  should  pos- 
sess a  distinctive  literature  of  its  own.  Yet  it  is  greatly 
to  the  credit  of  the  Keformed  Episcopal  Church  that  it 
has  already  produced  in  the  form  of  pamphlets  and 
published  sermons,  many  admirable  contributions  to 
its  own  ecclesiastical  history  and  apologetics. 

But  the  writer  of  the  following  discourses  has  long 
been  convinced  that,  while  certain  phases  of  our  polity 
have  been  set  forth  with  ability  and  learning,  we  have 
lacked  a  manual  covering  the  whole  field  of  our  distinc- 
tive positions. 

To  the  author  of  this  book,  and  probably  also  to  many 
of  his  brethren,  it  has  been  a  matter  of  regret  that  our 
Church  has  not  heretofore  given  to  the  public  any  ex- 
planation or  defence  of  those  peculiarities  in  which  she 
differs  from  other  Evangelical  Churches. 

Why  this  is  an  Episcopal  Church ;  why  we  conserve 
the  historic  Episcopate ;  why  we  worship  in  the  use  of 
liturgical  forms ;  why  we  retain  Confirmation  as  a  mode 

(iii) 


IV 

of  admission  to  full  membership  of  the  Church ;  why 
we  perpetuate  the  ancient  order  of  the  Christian  Year 
with  its  regularly  recurring  seasons ;— are  all  questions 
frequently  asked  of  the  Eeformed  Episcopalian,  but  to 
which  the  literature  of  his  own  Church  gave  no  reply. 
The  present  volume  is  a  humble  attempt  to  supply  this 
felt  want. 

Primarily  these  sermons  were  preached  to  a  single 
congregation.  The  liberality  of  the  Keformed  Episco- 
pal Publication  Society  has  given  them  at  once  a  per- 
manent form  and  a  wider  field. 

The  author  desires  to  express  his  great  obligation  to 
the  Rev.  H.  S.  Hoffman,  for  affording  opportunity  to 
consult  authorities  not  easily  found  in  private  libra- 
ries ;  to  the  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  D.  D.,  for  his  aid  in 
the  study  of  some  important  questions  of  American 
Ecclesiastical  history,  and  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Thomas 
Huband  Gregg,  D.  D.,  for  evidence  contained  in  his 
correspondence  with  some  of  the  leading  minds  of  the 
English  Church. 

Christ  Church,  Chicaqo, 
May,  1888. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

The  Reformed    Episcopalian  at  the   Baptismal 

Font 3 

The  Reformed    Episcopalian  and   the   Rite  of 

Confirmation 26 

The    Reformed    Episcopalian    at     the     Lord's 

Table 45 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  and  his  Minister.  67 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  and  his  Bishop. .  84 

The  Reformed   Episcopalian   and    his    Prayer 

Book 105 

The  Reformed   Episcopalian  and    the    Church 

Year 128 

The  Reformed    Episcopalian  and  his   Duty  to 

his  own  Church 147 

Appendix „.., 171 


(V) 


THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPALIAN  AT  THE 
BAPTISMAL  FONT. 


"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations^  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''     St.  Matt,  xxviii:  19. 


The  divisions  of  the  visible  Churcli  have  often 
been  represented  by  the  rending  into  fragments  of 
the  seamless  coat  of  Christ,  from  which  even  the 
rude  soldiers  at  the  CruciQxion  shrank. 

So  sad  and  pessimistic  a  view  of  the  condition  of 
Christendom,  has  its  origin  in  a  false  notion  of 
what  constitutes  the  real  unity  of  Christ's  people. 

On  that  night  in  Gethsemane,  when  our  Lord 
began  His  high  priestly  work  of  interceding  for 
those  whom  He  redeemed  with  His  blood,  lie 
prayed — "  That  they  may  be  one — even  as  we  are," 
Jno.  xvii:  11.  Did  He  mean  that  this  oneness  was 
a  unity  extending  to  outward  form,  and  visible  or- 
ganism? The  answer  is  in  the  very  language  of 
the  prayer  itself.  He  sought  that  His  disciples 
should  be  one.  even  as  He  and  His  Father  were  one. 
But  God  the  Father,  throned  in  dazzling  glory,  in- 
visible to  human  eye,  yet  wielding  the  forces  of 
(3) 


Omnipotence,  was  not  one,  in  any  visible  form  or 
outward  organism,  with  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  who 
stripped  Himself  of  all  glory,  who  humbled  Him- 
self to  hunger  and  thirst — to  eat  and  sleep — to  be 
tempted  by  the  devil  and  persecuted  by  men,  to  be 
betrayed  and  mocked  and  crucified.  The  perfect 
unity  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  was  oneness 
of  nature  and  will — spiritual  and  invisible.  Christ's 
prayer  then,  was  that  His  disciples  amidst  all  visi- 
ble and  organic  differences  whicli  might  exist, 
should  be  one  in  spirit,  in  heart,  in  purpose. 

Christianity  deals  with  the  greatest  problems 
which  ever  set  human  thought  at  work.  That  all 
thinking  disciples  should  follow  the  same  paths  of 
reasoning,  or  arrive  at  preciselj''  the  same  conclu- 
sions, was  never  promised  by  the  Master.  All  at- 
tempts to  force  the  followers  of  Jesus  into  one 
and  the  same  intellectual  perception  of  doctrinal 
truth,  have  uniformly  resulted  in  a  deadening 
superstition  on  the  one  hand,  or  a  re-action  into 
blank  unbelief  upon  the  other. 

In  the  streets  of  our  great  cities,  a  huge  steam- 
roller is  employed  in  crushing  diverse  materials 
into  a  uniform  pavement  In  its  track  are  no  in- 
equalities. Earth  and  stone,  granite  boulders  and 
yielding  clay,  are  perfectly  compacted.  But  the 
unity  resulting  is  the  unity — not  of  nature — but  of 
artificial  power.        ^ 

The  history  of  European  Christianity  for  many 


centuries  was  the  record  of  an  outward  and  organic 
unity.  But  it  was  tliat  produced  by  a  crushing 
force.  Few  are  they  among  believers  in  this  nine- 
teenth century  who  find  in  those  dark  ages  tiie 
highest  type  and  best  example  of  what  the  Church 
of  Christ  should  be.  There  are  certain  great  facts 
and  principles,  embodied  in  evangelical  creeds  and 
confessions,  which  belong  to  the  whole  body  of 
Christ.  They  constitute  the  Temple  of  Divine  Truth. 
They  are  the  common  lieritage  of  that  true  Church 
which  our  communion  service  calls  "  the  blessed 
company  of  all  faithful  people."  But  while  the 
human  mind  is  constituted  as  it  is,  men  will  differ 
as  to  the  best  and  most  effective  ways  in  which 
the  common  truth  can  be  defended  and  preserved. 

Look  for  illustration  of  the  point  which  we  are 
making,  to  the  sphere  of  education.  The  young 
man  who  comes  forth  from  one  of  our  colleges  or 
public  schools,  with  a  strong,  well-developed,  sym- 
metrical mind,  has  been  beneath  the  moulding 
hands  of  teachers — each  of  whom  was  an  enthusiast 
in  his  own  depirtment.  One  of  these  instructors 
felt  that  he  could  best  build  up  tiie  mind  of  his 
pupil  by  mathematical  science.  Another  devoted 
his  whole  energies  to  making  iiis  3'outhful  charge 
an  adept  in  the  ancient  or  modern  languages.  To 
still  a  third,  the  one  essential  point  to  be  gained, 
was  to  imbue  that  eager  intellect  with  a  passion- 
ate love  for  the  physical  sciences.     But  in  his  own 


way,  each  teacher  was  loyal  to  the  great  end  and 
purpose  of  character  building.  To  have  been  less 
enthusiastic  in  his  own  department,  would  have 
been  a  wrong  wreaked  upon  his  pupil. 

So  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  To  each  of  the  evan- 
gelical communions,  one  department  of  essential 
truth  seems  the  strongest  pillar  of  the  temple  of 
the  Gospel.  To  keep  that  pillar  erect — to  watch 
over  its  safety — to  defend  it  when  attacked — is 
truest  loyalty  to  the  Gospel  itself. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  claims  no  monopoly 
of  the  whole  truth  of  God.  But  he  does  recog- 
nize his  responsibility  as  the  representative  of  cer- 
tain principles,  to  neglect  which  would  impair  the 
foundations  of  the  entire  building.  In  deepest 
loyalty  to  the  Gospel  and  tlie  King,  he  claims  the 
right  to  acquaint  himself  with,  and  to  make  known 
to  others,  the  methods  by  which  he  would  aid  in 
upholding  the  stately  structure  of  universal  Chris- 
tian itj-. 

But  where  shall  be  our  starting  point?  Biog- 
raphy begins  at  the  cradle.  The  geographer  in  his 
tracing  of  a  river's  course,  sets  out  from  its  foun- 
tain-head. History  has  its  threshold  where  man 
appears  first  on  the  earth. 

So  membership  of  a  visible  church  has  its  initial 
point  in  the  solemn  rite  which  Christ  ordained  as 
the  entrance  upon  His  earthly  l^ingdom.  Let  this 
be  our  sufficient  reason  for  opening  this  course  of 


sermons  with  the  topic,  ^  The  Reformed  Episcopa- 
lian at  the  Baptismal  Font." 

I.  The  position  assigned  to  Baptism  in  the 
Word  of  God. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  is  jealous  of  any  es- 
sential doctrine  which  does  not  find  its  basis  and 
ultimate  authority  in  the  Bible.  In  this  respect, 
he  treats  religious  principles  precisely  as  the 
patriotic  American  deals  with  the  principles  of 
politics.  In  all  that  concerns  my  lights  and  duties 
as  a  citizen  of  the  Republic,  I  have  a  profound 
veneration  for  the  views  and  interpretations  of  the 
constitution  which  appear  in  the  utterances  of 
Washington,  Jefferson,  and  the  Adamses.  The 
words  of  such  men  are  entitled  to  due  respect. 
But  they  can  never  place  any  great  constitutional 
question  beyond  the  pale  of  controversy.  The  ul- 
timate appeal  must  be  to  the  constitution  itself. 
In  like  manner  every  Reformed  Episcopal  clergy- 
man, whether  he  be  deacon,  presbyter,  or  bishop, 
is  required  by  his  ordination  vow  to  teach  nothing 
as  essential  to  salvation,  except  t!iat  which  he  is 
persuaded  is  taught  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  may  be 
clearly  proven  by  it. 

Little  wonder  if  so  solemn  a  promise  should  af- 
fect his  teaching  upon  points  which  are  not  abso- 
lutely essential  to  salvation.  Even  in  regard  to 
matters  of  smaller  moment,  the  Reformed  Episco- 


8 


palian  desires  to  know  whether  God's  written  Word 
has  borne  its  testimony. 

But  no  careful  student  of  the  Scriptures  will 
come  to  tlie  conclusion  that  baptism  is  a  subject  of 
trifling  importance. 

'J  here  are  no  less  than  seventy-six  passages  in  the 
New  Testament  wliich  deal  with  this  question. 
God  has  not  thrust  it  into  a  corner.  It  is  as  impos- 
sible to  read  the  Bible,  and  ignore  the  allusions  to 
baptism,  as  to  scan  the  midnight  heavens,  and  for- 
get the  existence  of  the  stars. 

But  the  importance  of  tlie  rite  is  not  to  be  gauged 
merely  by  the  frequency  with  which  it  is  mentioned. 
There  is  a  far  more  weighty  evidence.  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  insisted  upon  being  baptized. 
He  had  no  sins  to  be  washed  away.  Surely,  He 
needed  not  to  have  the  element  of  water  applied  to 
His  blessed  person  as  s3'mbol  of  such  spiritual 
cleansing.  Yet  such  importance  did  He  attach  to 
this  symbolic  use  of  water,  as  a  teacher  of  man's 
sinfulness,  and  need  of  inward  cleansing — that  He 
compelled  John  the  Baptist  to  baptize  Him.  Matt, 
iii:  13-15. 

Isaiah  had  foretold  seven  hundred  years  before, 
that  Christ  should  "  be  numbered  among  the  trans- 
gressors.'' Sinless  Himself — He  yet  was  baptized, 
that  in  all  respects  He  might  be  identified  with 
sinners. 

His    ministry   was    marked    by   the    baptism    of 


9 


those  who  became  His  followers.  Though  He 
** baptized  not''  with  His  own  hands,  His  disci- 
ples administered  that  rite  to  more  converts  than 
even  John  had  baptized  at  the  waters  of  the  Jor- 
dan.    John  iv:    1,  2. 

Go  one  step  further.  The  last  words  of  a  father 
to  his  children,  do  not  deal  with  trifles.  The  final 
instructions  of  a  general  to  the  officers  who  lead 
an  army  to  desperate  battle,  concern  the  points 
vital  to  success.  Yet  the  latest  words  which  Jesus 
spoke  to  those  whom  He  sent  forth  to  bear  His 
banner  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  imposed  on  them 
a  command  to  baptize  all  who  through  their  Gospel 
should  believe  on  Him.     Matt,  xxviii :   19. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  plants  his  feet 
firmly  on  the  Scrij)ture  when  he  proclaims  the  mo- 
mentous nature  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 
For,  as  he  pushes  on  his  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  meets  the  fact  that  the  command  of  the 
Master  was  cariied  out  by  His  inspired  apostles. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  recall  in  the  pages  of  the 
Acts,  a  solitary  record  of  conversion — whether  it 
be  that  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  of  the  3000  Jews  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  of  the  jailor  at  Philippi,  or  of 
Lydia,  the  purple-seller  of  Thyatira — in  whici)  the 
yielding  of  the  heart  to  Christ,  is  not  followed  by 
the  "confession  of  the  mouth"  in  baptism.  The 
Reformed  Episcopalian  does  not  say  with  the 
Roman   Church  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  sal- 


10 


vation  without  this  symbolic  cleansing.  He  has  no 
proof  that  the  penitent  thief  had  ever  been  bap- 
tized. Nor  can  he  limit  God's  mercy  where  a 
repentant  and  believing  soul  may  be  placed  in  cir- 
cumstances which  make  the  act  of  baptism  im- 
possible. He  does  not  pretend  to  make  himself  a 
judge  of  such  believers  as  may  be  found,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  Society  of  Friends,  who  have  been 
misled  by  a  false  spiritualizing  of  a  positive  com- 
mand of  Christ.  To  their  own  Master  they  must 
stand  or  fall.  But  he  does  hold  with  unwavering 
firmness  to  the  simple  fact,  that  the  Bible  clearly 
declares  it  the  duty  of  every  believer  to  confess 
his  faith  by  a  baptism  with  water  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.  Such  a  fact  lifts  the  baptismal 
washing  out  of  the  realm  of  mere  optional  cere- 
monial. It  makes  it  obligatory  on  every  soul  who 
trusts  in  Jesus  and  would  do  His  will. 

II.  It  is  this  same  fidelity  to  the  Word  of  God, 
which  compels  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  to  be- 
lieve that  THE  QUANTITY  OF  WATER  USED  IN  SYM- 
BOLIZING THE   Spirit's    power   to   purify,    is    a 

MATTER  WHICH  DOES  NOT  CONCERN  HIM. 

He  is  willing  to  yield  all  honor  and  Christian 
regard  to  brethren  who  refuse  to  admit  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord  those  Christians  who  have  not 
received  baptism  by  immersion.  But  it  is  a  deep 
conviction  of  Scripture  truth  which  leads  him  to 
protest  against  what  seems  to  him  such  unbrotherly 


11 

exclusion.  For  it  is  the  Bible  which  makes  bap- 
tism with  water  a  symbol  of  the  soul's  spiritual 
cleansing  through  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  the  Bible  which  teaches  that  the  other  sacra- 
ment is  a  symbol  of  the  soul's  feeding  by  faith  on 
a  crucified  Saviour. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  cannot  help  asking 
why  the  quantity  of  bread  and  wine  should  not  be 
prescribed  in  the  Lord's  supper,  if  the  quantity  of 
water  must  be  prescribed  in  baptism  ?  If  a  morsel 
of  bread — a  taste  of  wine — which  in  themselves 
satisf}^  neither  bodily  hunger,  nor  bodily  thirst,  are 
yet  sufficient  to  symbolize  how  Jesus  satisfies  the 
soul — why  should  not  as  much  water  as  the  hollow 
of  the  hand  will  hold,  be  sufficient  of  that  cleans- 
ing element  to  symbolize  how  Jesus  by  His  Spirit 
purifies  the  heart  ? 

The  limits  of  this  sermon  forbid  an  extended 
argument  Let  iJi  suffice  to  say  that  the  Greek 
veib  |3artTt^w,  from  which  we  get  our  word  ''  bap- 
tize," has  never  been  proven  to  mean  the  total  im- 
mersion of  the  ho\y  in  water.  Both  Plutarch  and 
Xenophon  among  the  classic  Greek  authors  use  it 
with  reference  to  the  sprinkling  which  a  gardener 
bestows  upon  his  plants.  Is  there  any  evidence 
that  when  this  word^  far  older  than  the  New  Tes- 
tament, came  to  be  enlisted  in  the  service  of  the 
Gospel  writers,  its  former  classic  meaning  was  al- 
together changed  ?     On  the  contrary,  there  is  not 


12 


one  passage  where  we  are  compelled  to  believe  that 
it  meant  a  complete  submersion. 

1  can  only  give  one  or  two  examples.  I  refer 
you  for  a  fuller  investigation  to  a  most  unanswer- 
able tract  of  the  Rev.  William  H.  Cooper,  D.  D.,  a 
venerable  presbyter  of  our  own  Church,  entitled, 
''  Facts  for  the    Unprejudiced. " 

St.  Mark,  speaking  of  the  Pharisees,  says, 
■"  When  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash,  they  eat  not  '*  Mark  vii :  4.  In  the  original 
it  reads,  "  Except  the}^  hai^tize  themselves."  But 
we  know  that  the  ceremony  referred  to  certainly 
did  not  involve  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
previous  to  every  act  of  eating  ;  for  this  last  puri- 
fication was  reserved  for  cases  of  special  ceremonial 
defilement. 

St.  Luke  tells  us  that  the  Pharisee  who  had  in- 
vited our  Lord  to  dinner,  was  shocked  because 
Jesus  ''  had  not  first  washed  " — in  the  Greek,  ''  bap- 
tized himself.''  Luke  xi  :  37,  38.  Can  we  believe 
that  the  host  expected  every  guest  to  totally  sub- 
merge himself  as  a  preparation  for  the  feast  ? 

Again  St  Mark  speaks  of  the  Pharisaic  ceremony 
of  the  washing — or  in  the  original — the  *'  baptism  ' 
of  *'  tables,''  or,  as  it  may  be  rendered,  '*  couches." 
Were  the  tables  of  a  Jewish  house  totally  im- 
mersed ?  Are  we  to  believe  that  some  vat  or  bap- 
tistery was  universally  provided  by  the  Pharisees 
for  such  a  purpose  ? 


18 


John  the  Baptist  predicted  that  Jesus  should 
"  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,'' 
Matt,  iii :  11.  The  fulfillment  came  upon  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  But  how?  The  author  of  the  Book 
of  Acts  replies,  '^  There  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  as  of  fire;  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.'* 
Acts  ii :  3.  They  certainly  were  not  immersed  in 
fire.  Again,  when  Peter  preached  to  Cornelius  and 
his  household,  "the  Holy  Ghost,"  we  are  told, 
^^  fell  upon  all  them  which  heard  the  AVord."  Acts 
x:  44.  They  were  not  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Yet  when  Peter  comes  to  describe  the 
scene  to  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  he  describes  it 
as  a  baptism.  "  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  how  that  He  said,  John  indeed  baptized 
with  water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."     Acts  xi :   16. 

But  the  passage  most  frequently  urged  as  settling 
the  whole  question,  is  in  St.  Paul's  .epistle  to  the 
Romans.  It  reads,  ''Know  ye  not  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  His  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  Him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."     Rom.  vi:  3-6. 

Our  friends  who  claim  that  there  is  no  baptism 
except  in  immersion,  declare  that  the  figurative 
expression   "buried  with  Him,"  must  be  literally 


14 


carried   out  by  the   entire   burial  of  the  baptized 
person  in  water. 

It  seems  incredible  that  this  purely  figurative 
language  should  be  thus  pressed  to  literal  and 
minute  conclusions  by  excellent  and  learned  men. 
For  in  the  very  same  passage,  St.  Paul  also  asserts 
that  we  are  "  jylanted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
His  death  "  Why  should  we  not  carry  into  lit- 
eral details  this  figure  also  ? 

Or  when  the  apostle  adds,  *'  Knowing  this,  that 
our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Him" — why  not 
with  equal  reason  press  the  figure  to  mean  a  lit- 
eral stretching  of  the  Christian  on  a  cross? 

It  would  be  an  easy  task  to  prove  that  all  the 
monuments  of  the  primitive  Church,  the  pictorial 
inscriptions  of  the  earl}^  Christians  on  the  walls  of 
the  catacombs,  as  well  as  the  recorded  history  of 
ancient  Christianity,  unanimously  show  that  bap- 
tism was  performed  either  by  immersion,  by 
sprinkling,  or  by  a  combination  of  both  {vide 
"Apostolic  Baptism,"  by  C.  Taylor).  But  the  Re- 
formed Episcopalian  rests  his  persuasion  upon  the 
written  word  of  God.  From  that  he  knows  no 
appeal. 

III.  We  attest  the  genuineness  of  ever}^  import- 
ant document  by  a  seal.  Baptism  in  all  branches 
OF  THE  Christian  Church,  is  the  seal  set  to  the 

MOST     important     TRANSACTION   WHICH     CAN     TAKE 
PLACE  BETWEEN  A  HUMAN  SOUL  AND  ITS  MaKER  AND 


15 


Redeemer.  It  attests  the  covenant  entered  into 
between  the  sinner  and  his  Saviour  in  the  hour 
that,  penitent  and  believing,  the  soul  receives 
Christ  as  its  only  atoning  sacrifice. 

Jesus  invites — "  Come  unto  Me."  The  soul  re- 
sponds by  a  trustful  and  loving  surrender.  But 
the  surrender  is  not  completed  in  all  its  fulness, 
until  the  seal  of  baptism  has  been  set  to  the  solemn 
yet  joyful  transfer.  But  the  Reformed  Episcopa- 
lian cannot  forget  that  Christ  never  invited  adults 
alone  He  did  not  merely  ask  men  and  women  to 
^*come."  He  said,  '^  Suffer  the  little  children  to 
come  unto  Me."  Mark,  x:  14.  His  invitation  and 
command  was  that  parents  who  believed  on  Him 
should  dedicate  their  offspring  by  a  complete  sur- 
render, even  as  themselves.  Surely,  He  meant  that 
the  infant  equally  with  the  parent,  should  receive 
the  seal  of  such  surrender.  His  reasoyi  for  requir- 
ing the  children  to  be  brought  to  Him  makes  the 
case  still  stronger.  "  For,"  He  says,  "  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.''^  He  declares  as  plainly 
as  words  can  speak,  that  the  children  of  believing 
parents  are  members  of  His  kingdom  and  Church. 
We  have  His  word  for  it.  Can  anything  be  more 
uusoriptural  than  to  refuse  to  the  very  class  of  souls 
whom  Jesus  has  thus  pointed  out  as  members  of 
His  kingdom,  the  seal  by  which  that  membership  is 
witnessed  ? 

Moreover,  as  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  follows 


16 

His  Lord  to  tlie  close  of  His  earthly  career,  he 
bears  Him  giving  His  special  commission  to  the 
pardoned  and  restored  Apostle  Peter.  He  lays  it 
upon  the  conscience  of  His  penitent  disciple  that 
be  is  to  "feed  "  His  "  sheep."  But  as  if  it  were 
even  more  a  duty,  He  firs/;  says,  "  Feed  My  lambs.^^ 
John  xxi  :  15-17.  Then  the  lambs  belong  to  Christ. 
Equally  with  the  sheep/ they  are  in  His  flock  and 
His  fold.  Would  the  "  Good  Shepherd  "  put  His 
mark,  His  seal.  His  sign,  upon  the  sheep,  and  not 
upon  the  lambs  ? 

Nor  can  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  forget  that 
when  the  apostles  went  forth  in  Pentecostal 
power  and  wisdom,  they  baptized  whole  families. 
LycUa  of  Thyatira  was  baptized,  "  and  her  house,^^ 

an  expression  which  is  the  exact  equivalent  of 

our  word  "  family."  Acts  xvi :  15.  Not  only  did 
Paul  and  Silas  baptize  the  Philippian  jailor,  but 
"  all  /lis."  Acts  xvi :  33.  St.  Paul,  in  writing  to 
the  Corinthian  Church,  does  not  take  the  trouble  to 
say  whether  or  not  he  baptized  Stephanas,  the  head 
of  a  household ;  but  does  place  it  on  record  that  he 
baptized  his  family.  1  Cor.  i:  16.  Incredible,  in- 
deed, does  it  seem  to  the  .Reformed  Episcopalian, 
that  if  the  Jewish  custom  of  receiving  the  little 
ones  formally  into  the  Church  by  a  distinct  and  ap- 
pointed ceremony,  was  departed  from  by  the  early 
Christians,  no  command  to  that  effect  was  given, 
and  no  controversy  sprang  up  about  so  inexplicable 


17 

an  omission.  To  the  Relormed  Episcopalian,  the 
subject  is  intensely  practicaL  All  history  attests 
that  in  the  early  Church,  believing  parents  realized 
a  responsibility  for  their  (children's  Gospel  training, 
which  is  sadly  wanting  among  members  of  the 
Church  to-day.  The  primitive  Christian  realized 
that  in  solemn  dedication,  his  child  had  been  given 
to  Christ.  It  was  ihe  parent's  duty  and  privilege 
so  to  surround  the  child  from  its  very  cradle  with 
the  atmosphere  of  Christian  truth,  and  prayer,  and 
daily  instruction,  that  the  child  should  grow  up  into 
a  sense  of  its  own  responsibility  for  the  fulfillment 
of  parental  promises.  The  secret  of  much  that 
made  the  first  centuries  of  Christianity  v/hat  they 
were,  lay  in  this  family  religion,  ever  stimulated 
and  sustained  by  the  consciousness  in  both  parents 
and  children,  that  alike  they  had  been  dedicated  to 
the  Lord. 

Those  early  disciples  did  not  leave  their  offspring 
to  first  hear  the  elements  of  the  Gospel  from  the 
lips  of  a  Sunday  school  teacher.  Nor  did  they  be- 
lieve that  their  little  ones  must  grow  up  in  the  dark- 
ness of  alienpttion  from  God,  till  some  revival  should 
let  in  a  sudden  flash  of  spiritual  light. 

If  parents  among  Reformed  Episcopalians  will 
follow  the  leadings  of  their  Church,  it  will  make 
infant  baptism  universal  among  us,  and  will  make 
it  a  reality  and  a  power — not  a  superstitious  and 
meaningless  form. 


18 

lY.  Fidelity  to  the  Bible  compels  the  Reformed 
Episcopalian  to  enter  his  solemn  protest  against 
THE  theory  that  the  new  birth  is  inseparably 

TIED  to  BAPTISiM. 

When  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  left  native  land,  and 
family  ties,  and  sweet  associations  in  old  England, 
to  make  a  new  home  and  nation  across  the  sea,  the 
world  bad  a  right  to  ask  what  drove  them  from  the 
country  of  their  birtli.  Fourteen  years  ago,  some 
of  us  turned  away  with  sad  hearts  and  bitter  tears, 
from  associations  sweet  and  precious  as  native  land 
or  childhood's  home.  The  world  has  a  right  to  ask 
what  drove  us  out  from  our  mother  Church.  Tbe 
full  answer  will  be  given  as  this  course  progresses. 
But  one  of  the  causes  which  forced  that  separation, 
belongs  to  my  theme  to-day.  Our  old-time  prayer 
book  required  its  ministers  to  declare  immediately 
upon  the  baptism  of  an  infant  or  adult,  that  the 
baptized  person  was  then  and  there  borii  again  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  (vide  Baptismal  Offices,  Prot- 
Epis.  Prayer  Book).  A  babe  is  brought  to  the 
baptismal  font,  "  a  child  of  wrath  "  {vide  Church 
Catechism).  The  water  of  baptism  is  put  upon  its 
I  brow,  and  lo !  then  for  the  first  time,  the  minister 
lifts  up  his  voice  to  God  in  this  thanksgiving,  "  We 
thank  Thee  that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regenerate 
this  infant  with  Thy  Holy  Spirit.''^ 

To  every  evangelical  Christian,  the  new  birth  is 
that  "  creative  act  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  He 


19 

imparts  to  the  soul  a  new  spiritual  life."  Yet  our 
former  prayer-book  service  tied  this  work  of  the 
Omnipotent  God,  wonderful  as  the  original  creation 
of  man,  to  a  ceremony  performed  by  a  sinful  crea- 
ture. We  recognized  the  fact  that  experience 
showed  tliat  very  often  none  of  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  were  brought  forth  by  those  who  had  been 
baptized.  We  were  startled  by  the  Bible  testimony 
that  f  imon  Magus,  baptized  by  apostolic  hands, 
was  yet  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of 
iniquity."  Acts  viii :  23.  We  appealed  to  our  high 
church  leaders  for  Scripture  proof  that  the  new 
birth  was  inseparably  tied  to  baptism  with  water. 
They  pointed  us  to  Christ's  language  to  Nicodemus, 
*'  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  the  kinscdom  of  God."  John  iii :  5- 
We  saw  that  Christ  clearly  taught  that  His  disci- 
ples must  be  baptized  both  with  water  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  But  we  could  not  find  one  word  in 
Jesus'  solemn  utterance  to  the  Jewish  rabbi,  which 
said, "The  baptism  with  water  insures  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit."  I  may  say  to  the  newly-landed  im- 
migrant, '•  Except  you  be  naturalized,  and  filled 
with  the  spirit  of  your  adopted  country,  3'ou  cannot 
be  an  American."  But  I  dare  not  say,  "  Take  the 
step  of  legal  natuialization,  and  the  spirit  of  patri- 
otic devotion  will  of  necessity  come  with  it." 

Then  we  were   pointed   to  St.   Paul's  words  to 
Titus,  ''According  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us  by 


the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  lenewing  of 
the  Uoly  Ghost."     Titus  iii :  5 

But  to  assume  that  ''  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion "  was  baptismal  washing,  was  simply  to  beg 
the  question  at  issue.  Nor  only  so  ;  but  we  j  er- 
ceived  that  St.  Paul  brought  out  this  "  washing  of 
regeneration,"  as  sometliing  specially  in  contrast 
to  "  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done." 
liy  these  works  he  asserted  we  were  not  saved.  But 
in  the  case  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  Christians  in 
the  days  of  Paul  and  Titus,  including  both  of  them- 
selves, the  act  of  baptism  was  the  deliberate  act  of 
an  adult,  voluntarily  done  as  a  ivork  of  righteous- 
ness. It,  therefore,  could  not  be  "the  washijag  of 
regeneration  "  referred  to  by  the  ai)OStles. 

Still,  a^^ain,  we  were  reminded  that  St.  Peter  de- 
clares,  "  Ba})tism  doth  also  now  save  us."  1  Pet.  iii  : 
21.  But  we  could  not  fail  to  read  the  rest  of  the 
verse,  "  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God." 

In  a  word,  evangelical  ministers  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  found  themselves  pushed  into 
this  fearful  position.  They  found  no  evidence  in  the 
Scriptures  that  regeneration  was  uniformly  wrought 
by  the  act  of  baptism.  God's  Spirit  was  free.  John 
iii  •  8.  He  miafht  new  create  the  soul  in  the  hour 
of  the  baptismal  rite,  or  before,  or  afterwards.  Yet, 
every  such  minister  must  give  up  the  use  of  the 


21 


baptismal  service,  or  else  in  solemn  words  of 
thanksgiving  to  God,  publicly  declare  that  which 
he  did  not  believe  to  be  God's  truth. 

Do  not  imagine  that  such  a  dilemma  faced  the 
low  churchmen  of  the  English  and  American  Epis- 
copal Church,  for  the  first  time,  when  the  contro- 
versy arose  which  resulteii  ia  the  Reformed  Episco- 
pal Church.  Evangelical  ministers  and  laymen  had 
groaned  under  the  bondage  of  the  baptismal  service 
from  the  days  of  the  Reformation.  They  perceived 
the  awful  chasm  wiiich  yawned  between  the  plain 
teachings  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  words  which  the 
prayer  book  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  olficiating 
minister.  They  saw  how,  under  the  literal  teach- 
ing of  the  baptismal  service,  the  souls  of  sinners 
were  imperilled.  Believing  themselves  to  be  regen- 
erated by  God's  Holy  Spirit  in  the  act  of  baptism, 
and  thus  saved  by  the  baptismal  wasliing,  men  came 
to  trust  their  entire  hope  for  eternity  to  an  outward 
and  mechanical  ceremony. 

They  saw,  too,  that  a  more  than  Romish  super- 
stition pervaded  the  minds  of  the  humble  and  un- 
lettered members  of  the  Church,  leading  them  to 
believe  that  the  unbaptized  infant  must  certainly 
perish.  They  heard  from  high  diurch  pulpits  the 
echoof  the  language  of  such  teachers  as  Bishop  Mant, 
who  proclaimed  that  in  baptism  we  have  "  a  new 
principle  put  into  us,  and  sanctification  and  purity 
unspotted  are  attributed  to  the  Church  of  Christ  as 


22 

the  effect  of  the  washing  of  wnter."  They  heard  it 
asserted  in  the  language  of  the  same  prelate,  that 
*'  baptism  is  the  new  birth."  And  when,  with  the 
Bible  in  their  hands,  they  refuted  such  false  doc- 
trine, tlieir  own  people  pointed  them  to  the  bap- 
tismal service,  anJ  asked, ''  Do  you  not,  every  time 
you  baptize  with  water,  pray  God  to '  sanctify  this 
water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin'  ?  Da 
you  not,  when  the  application  of  water  has  been 
made,  turn  to  the  people,  and  say,  '  Seeing  now, 
dearly  beloved,  that  tliis  child  (or  this  person)  is 
regenerate,  let  us  give  thanks'  ?  Do  you  not  then 
before  the  searcher  of  hearts  say,  '  We  thank  Thee 
that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regenerate  this  child 
(or  this  person)  with  Tliy  Holy  Spirit'?" 

Do  you  ask  how  such  low  churchmen — honest,  con- 
scientious. God-fearing,  managed  to  stay  in  the  old 
Church,  and  repeat  on  every  baptismal  occasion  a 
statement  which  they  believed  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  word  of  God?  1  can  best  answer  that 
question  from  my  own  experience.  I  satisfied  my 
conscience,  through  many  years  of  ministry  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  by  trying  to  explain 
away  the  language  of  the  service.  Two  or  three 
widely  different  theories  had  been  put  forth  by  low 
churcli  theologians,  either  one  of  which,  it  was  be- 
lieved, would  bridge  over  the  abyss  between  the 
prayer  book  and  the  Bible.  One  of  these  was  that 
the  service  spoke  of  a  sort  o^  ecclesiastical  regener- 


23 


ation,  a  new  birth  into  the  visible  Church,  rather 
than  into  the  spiritual  life  * 

Another  was  that  the  service  spoke  what  was 
called,  "  the  judgment  of  charity."  In  other  words^ 
it  charitably  took  for  granted  that  the  baptized  in- 
fant or  adult  would  repent"  and  believe,  and  God 
would  give  His  spiritual  new  birth  to  that  soul.  It 
told  the  minister  to  imagine  himself  for  the  moment 
far  down  the  future,  supposing  repentance  and  faith 
to  have  been  exercised,  and  regeneration  therefore 
to  have  been  imparted.  On  such  an  hypothesis  he 
could  speak  of  what  might  be,  as  though  it  were 
accomplished,  and  so  declare  to  God  his  thank- 
fulness for  it  I  That  good  and  great  men  in  the 
evangelical  party  could  satisfy  their  consciences 
with  so  artificial  and  unnatural  an  explanation,  only 
showed  how  hard  pressed  low  churchmen  were  to 
find  some  method  to  fill  up  the  gulf  between  the 
Bible  and  the  baptismal  service,  f 

There  came  a  day  when  conscience  told  me  that 
I  was  juggling  with  plain  words,  to  torture  from 
them  that  which  they  did  not  mean.  The  service 
did  not  speak  of  the  future,  but  of  what  had  just 
now  been  accomplished  hythe  application  of  water. 
"  We  thank  Thee  that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  re- 
generate this  person." 

In  agony  of  soul,  I  turned  to  the  other  explana- 
tion. Did  not  the  baptismal  service  mean  that  a 
new   birth  was  wrought    by  baptism    only  in   the 

*  Vide  Appendix,  A.  f  Vide  Appendix,  B. 


24 


sense  of  introdacing  the  baptized  person  into  the 
new  world  o^  C/nirch  2Jrivil('ges?  Was  it  not  a 
sacramental  and  ecclesiastical,  instead  of  spiritual 
regeneration,  of  which  the  prayer  book  spoke  ? 

But  the  language  of  the  service  refused  this 
'•  flattering  unction  "  to  my  soul,  it  met  me  with 
the  plain  words,  "  that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regen- 
erate ivilh  Thy  Holy  Spirit  "  Surely  that  meant 
not  ecclesiastical,  but  apiritual  regeneration  ! 

I  had  reached  a  point  where  I  must  choose,  in 
God's  sight,  between  the  baptismal  service  and  the 
Bible.  You  know  the  result.  But  God  had  been 
working  upon  other  minds  and  consciences  as  He 
had  upon  my  own._ 

When  at  last  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church 
stood  forth  full-panoplied  for  its  great  conflict,  it 
was  with  a  baptismal  service  which  echoes  the 
teachinor  of  the  word  of  God.  It  struck  out  the 
assertion  which  made  baptism  with  water  the  un- 
failinor  channel  of  regeneration.  It  made  its  mes- 
sage,  reiterated  every  time  the  sacrament  is  per- 
formed, a  clear  enunciation  of  the  truth  that  baptism 
is  a  sign  and  seal  of  spiritual  regeneration,  but  not 
tliat  regeneration  itself  I  ask,  then,  in  closing, 
that  your  cordial  love  and  devotion  be  given  to  a 
Church  which  is  true  to  the  word  of  God,  upon  a 
question  which  meets  us  at  the  very  threshold  of 
the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ. 

"  Sire,"  said  an   American  engineer  to  the  Czar 


25 

Nicholas,  of  Russia,"  I  have  marked  out  the  course 
of  your  projected  railway  on  this  map.  We  must 
avoid  this  range  of  mountains  here.  There,  we 
must  follow  the  tortuous  valley  of  the  liver.  And 
at  this  point  we  must  touch  au'important  town  by 
deflecting  from  a  straight  course." 

The  Czar  took  his  pencil,  and  drawing  a  straight 
line  from  terminus  to  terminus,  said,  "  We  will 
build  the  road  on  that  line," 

Our  old  prayer  book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  veered  to  right  and  left  of  the  Scripture 
line  in  its  baptismal  service.  But  God  drew  the 
unerring  course  of  the  Bible  with  the  pencil  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  said  to  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church,  "Build  there."  We  have  honestly  and 
prayerfully  tried  to  do  it. 


THE     REFORMED      EPISCOPALIAN    AND 
THE    RITE    OF  CONFIRMATION. 


"0/   the  doctrine  of  baptisms  and  of  laying  on 
of  hands. ''^     Heb.  vi :  2. 


A  general  sameness  never  wakens  curiosity. 
But  on  the  other  band,  singularity  always  ex- 
cites our  interest.  A  man  appearing  in  the  strange 
dress  of  some  remote  country,  stands  out  in  such 
contrast  to  the  monotonous  and  colorless  character 
of  our  Anglo-Saxon  attire,  that  we  cannot  help  fix- 
ing our  e^es  upon  him. 

The  same  general  principle  holds  good  in  the 
sphere  of  religion.  The  peculiarity  of  speech  and 
dress  which  characterizes  a  Quaker,  and  the  singu- 
larity of  garb  and  manner  distinguishing  the  sister- 
hoods of  the  Roman  Church,  attract  our  notice  far 
more  tlian  the  every-day  and  common-place  appear- 
ance of  other  equally  devoted  and  spiritually- 
minded  Christians.  In  portions  of  our  own  coun- 
tr}^^  there  is  a  sect  of  which  few  persons  would 
have  ever  heard,  but  for  the  fact  that  they  main- 
tain, as  a  sort  of  sacrament,  the  ceremony  of  wash- 
ing each  other's  feet,  in  literal  imitation  of  our 
Divine  Lord, 


2r 

The  rite  of  confirmation,  or  reception  of  believers 
into  the  full  membership  of  the  Church  by  "  the 
laying  on  of  hands,"  is  no  novelty  in  universal 
Christendom.  Out  of  the  four  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  millions  of  nominal  Christians  in  the  world, 
three  hundred  and  forty  millions  admit  their  mem- 
bers by  some  form  involving  this  imposition  of 
hands.  Confirmation  is  not  merely  the  inheritance 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  England  an(\  America, 
but  of  that  vast  body  of  Protestants  on  both  sides 
-of  the  sea,  who  bear  the  name  and  cherish  the  teach- 
ings of  the  great  Reformer,  Luther. 

The  rite  is  sedulously  preserved  by  that  singu- 
larly pure  and  spiritual  body  of  believers,  who 
have  sprung  from  the  persecuted  Waldenses — the 
members  of  the  Moravian  Church 

Tlie  statistics  of  Protestantism  show  that  con- 
firmation is  the  chosen  metliod  of  admission  to  the 
visible  fold  of  Christ,  among  one-half  of  that  por- 
ium  of  Christendom  which  denies  the  authority, 
and  rejects  the  supersiitions  of  the  Greek  and  Ko- 
man  Churches. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  true  that  to 
the  majority  of  evangelical  Christians  in  the  United 
States,  this  ancient  ordinance  is  something  which 
has  the  aspect  of  a  stranger  and  an  alien. 

And  very  naturally  so.  For  this  country  owes 
its  evangelization,  to  a  large  degree,  to  three  great 
branches    of    the    Christian    Church — neither    of 


28 


"wlik'li  lias  retained  the  rite  of  confirmation.  Th 
Puritans  of  New  England  rejected  this  ceiemon^ 
■when  they  refused  to  be  ruled  by  bishops.  Th 
Presbyterian  Church,  against  the  preferences  c 
Calvin,  dropped  confirmation  as  early  as  the  day 
of  the  lieformation. 

While  John  Wesley  lived,  the  members  of  his  re 
li^^ious  societies  never  separated  from  the  Churcl 
of  England,  and  were  generally  confirmed  in  it 
pari-h  churches.  But  in  America,  from  the  first 
the  Methodist  Church,  which  Providence  made  th 
pioneer  of  the  Gospel  to  our  Western  States,  foJ 
lowed  another  mode  of  publicly  confessing  Christ 
No  wonder  tlien,  that  when  American  evangelise 
has  been  advanced  so  largely  by  churches  t 
whicli  confirmation  is  unknown,  the  masses  of  ou 
Protestant  wor.-hippers  look  upon  that  ordinr.nc 
as  a  singular  peculiarity.  A  Christian  trainee 
from  infancy  in  some  one  of  our  sister  churches 
enters  for  tlie  first  time  an  Episcopal  place  of  wor 
sliij'.  It  happens  to  be  on  a  Sunday  when  a  ban< 
of  young  believers  are  publicly  to  give  their  alle 
giance  to  the  Saviour.  Such  a  scene  awakens  n 
surprise.  He  is  used  to  similar  occasions.  Bu 
when  he  learns  that  the  oflTiciating  minister  who  re 
ceives  these  souls  into  the  visible  Kingdom  o 
Christ,  is  not  the  pastor  of  this  flock,  but  aa  ovei 
seer  of  mnny  congregations,  he  naturally  demand 
an  explanation.     Still  more  is  he  surprised  by  th 


29 


singularity  of  tlie  ceremony,  when  with  solemn 
prayer  for  God's  defending  grace,  the  bishop  lays 
his  hands  separately  upon  the  head  of  each  one  of 
these  new  confessors  of  the  faith.  So  marked  is 
the  difference  from  the  familiar  modes  of  public 
profession  of  Christ's  name,  that  it  raises  a  whole 
brood  of  inquiries  in  his  mind.  While  he  may  not 
question  the  solemnity  and  beauty  of  the  cere- 
mony he  witnesses,  it  yet  has  such  singularity,  that 
he  justly  seeks  some  adequate  explanation  of  it. 

To  afford  sach  inquirers  the  answer  to  which 
they  are  entitled,  is  the  purpose  which  I  have  in 
view  in  this  sermon.  Let  us  ask  then.  What  rea- 
sons HAS  THE  Reformed  Episcopalian  to  give 

FOR  THE  RITE  OF  CONFIRMATION  ? 

A  builder  feels  a  natural  satisfaction  when  he 
finds  himself  able  to  biy  the  foundation-stones  on 
a  basis  of  bed-rock.  It  would  perhaps  b3  a  simi- 
lar satisfaction  that  the  advocate  of  confirmation 
would  experience,  if  he  discovered  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament that  Christ  had  clearly  and  unequivocally 
commanded  this  precise  observance. 

Yet  it  would  be  a  pleasure  mingled  with  keenest 
pain.  For  such  a  command  would  put  the  rite  of 
confirmation  on  the  same  level  with  baptism  and 
the  supper  of  the  Lord. 

It  would  make  it  imperative  on  all  who  acknowl- 
edge the  authority  of  Christ.  To  refuse  or  to 
neglect  to  be  confirmed,  would  be  rebellion  against 


80 


our  King.  It  would  brand  one-half  of  Protestant- 
ism with  tlie  stigma  of  disloj^alty  to  Jesus.  Of 
what  wortli  the  Puritan's  stern  piety,  the  Presby- 
terian s  devotion  to  Gospel  truth,  t!ie  Methodist's 
spiritual  enthusiasm,  if  these  Christians  openly  re- 
fused obedience  to  a  requirement  of  Christ  Him- 
self? The  broadest  charit}^  could  n  t  cover  with 
its  mantle,  so  flagrant  a  revolt  against  the  Master. 

But  to  such  a  position  no  Reformed  Episcopa- 
lian is  driven.  The  man  who  gras[)s  t  )o  much,  at 
last  will  grasp  thin  air.  He  who  attempts  to  claim 
for  confirmation  the  authority  of  Christ,  weakens 
the  cause  for  which  be  pleads. 

Let  us  frankly  and  candidly  admit  that  there 
exists  in  the  New  Testament  no  trace  of  such  a 
Divine  appointment. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  the  Reformed  Epis- 
copalian does  not  allow  that  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion finds  no  sanction  or  warrant  in  the  Scripture. 
If  the  canon  of  Holy  Writ  ended  with  the  four 
Gospels,  we  should  find  no  Bible  sanction  for  many 
of  the  institutions  and  practices  which  the  whole 
Church  of  God  holds  dear. 

There  is  no  record  that  the  Lord  Himself  com- 
manded the  appointment  of  deacons,  or  authorized 
the  establishment  of  such  an  office.  But  the  fact 
that  the  apostles,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  they  were,   chose  the  seven.  Acts  vi :  5, 


31 


has  led  the  universal  Church  to  follow  their  ex- 
ample 

Has  it  ever  occurred  to  you  that  you  can  put 
your  finger  upon  no  text  of  the  New  T-estament 
where  Jesus  ever  directed  the  Lord's  supper  to  be 
administered  to  women,  or  even  to  any  lay  meml^cr 
of  the. Church  ?  It  was  in  an  assembly  of  apostles 
only,  it  was  in  a  gathering  of  men  exclusively,  that 
He  commanded,  "  Do  this  in  reriiembrance  of  Me." 
Matt,  xxvi :  20.  But  the  later  practice  of  the 
apostles  themselves  has  settled  all  question,  if  any 
ever  arose,  as  to  the  ri^ht  of  all  genuine  believers 
to  co'jamemorate  the  Saviour's  love 

When  Philip  the  Evangelist  had  preached  the 
Gospel  with  suc'i  power  in  the  City  of  Samaria, 
that  multitudes  "  both  of  men  and  women  "  turned 
to  the  Lord,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

Now  notice  what  follows  The  apostles  at  Jeru- 
salem hear  of  this  glorious  awakening  in  Samaria. 
And  forthwith  Peter  and  John — not  pastors  of 
congregations — not  deacons, like  Philip — but  higher 
officers  of  the  new-born  Church,  and  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  body  of  believers — are  de- 
spatched to  the  scene  of  Philip's  labors — for  what? 
To  pray  for  these  new  disciples,  and  to  lay  their 
handsupon  their  heads.  Actsvii:7.  Ifthiswerean 
isolated  case,  we  might  perhaps  suppose  that  it  was 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  apostolic  prac- 


32 


tice.  But  the  nineteenth  cliapter  of  the  Acts 
reveals  to  us  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
preaching  Christ  in  the  rich  and  dissolute  city  of 
Ephesus." 

Among  his  hearers  are  some  who  had  been  pre- 
pared for  accepting  Christ  by  the  teachings  of  John 
the  Baptist  or  some  of  his  disciples.  They  knew 
no  otlier  baptism  than  that  which  Christ's  stern 
herald  had  administered  as  a  symbol  of  repentance. 
Paul  baptizes  them.  But  he  does  not  stop  with 
this  obedience  to  the  last  command  of  Jesus.  He 
*'  laid  his  hands  upon  them."     Acts  xix  ;  6. 

The  careful  and  candid  reader  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment will  naturally  ask  the  qucition,  "  Why  was 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  ordained  as  it  was  by 
Christ  Himself,  supplemented  by  this  imposition 
of  hands?"  What  necessity  existed  that  those 
already  sealed  to  Christ  by  the  baptismal  sign, 
should  submit  to  another  and  additional  ceremony  ? 
The  Reformed  Episcopalian  answers  for  himself 
and  for  his  Church,  that  such  an  ordinance  would 
liave  a  two  fold  significance  and  value.  It  would 
renew  in  the  most  solemn  way  the  consecration  to 
Christ  which  baptism  had  previousl}''  made.  It 
would  involve  confirming  before  a  higher  officer  of 
the  Church,  the  covenant  into  which  tlie  soul  had 
entered  at  baptism.  Such  a  re-consecration  and 
such  a  confirmation  of  the  covenant,  if  sincere,  is 
alwavs  a  means  of  grace.     Not  in  any  mystic  or 


33 


superstitious  sense  ;  but  because  by  it  the  soul  is 
stirred  anew,  and  love  and  faith  revived.  Nor 
only  this  ;  but  when  such  public  renewal  of  bap- 
tismal engagements  was  made  before  one  wlio  rep- 
resented, as  the  apostles  did,  no  local  church  or 
congregation,  but  ihe  whole  body  of  believers;  and 
when  such  a  messenger  of  the  Church  at  large, 
sealed  the  act  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands,  it  was 
peculiarly  significant.  For  it  substantially  said  to 
the  young  believer,  "  Your  baptismal  obligations 
bind  you  not  merely  to  the  little  flock  in  Samaria, 
in  Ephesus,  in  Corinth  or  in  Thessalonica ;  they 
do  not  introduce  you  into  loving  fellowship  only 
with  the  pastor  whose  preaching  led  you  to  Jesus; 
Ijut  they  make  you  one  of  that  larger  and  broader 
communion  composed  of  all  who  love  the  Lord." 

Now  let  us  do  full  justice  to  those  who  hold  a 
different  view  of  the  imposition  of  the  .apostles' 
hands,  from  that  maintained  by  the  advocates  of 
confirmation. 

It  is  forcibly  argued  that  both  in  Samaria  and 
Ephesus,  the  extraordinary  and  visible  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  followed  the  laying  on  of 
hands. 

There  were  some  miraculous  and  supernatural 
gifts  bestowed  upon  these  new  members  of  the 
Church,  like  those  upon  the  Day  of  Pentecost  when 
the  disciples  spake  in  languages  which  they  had 
never  learned. 


34 


"  The  imposition  of  hands,"  say  the  opponents 
of  confirmation,  "  was  solely  to  accomplish  this 
result.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  visibly  bestowed  by 
the  touch  of  the  apostles.  That  was  the  purpose 
and  end  of  the  ceremon3^  Buttiie  age  of  miracles 
passed  away.  And  since  such  outward,  visible 
and  supernatural  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  no  longer 
the  heritage  of  God's  children,  the  ceremony 
through  which  they  were  imparted,  has  no  business 
in  the  Church.  It  is  like  the  ceremon}''  of  a  royal 
coronation  maintained  in  a  republic  wliere  kings 
are  no  longer  known." 

I  believe  this  to  be  a  full  and  fair  sta,tement  of 
the  objections  urged  against  any  Scripture  sanc- 
tion for  the  rite  of  confirmation. 

But  no  chain  is  stronger  than  one  of  its  links. 
The  argument  which  I  have  tried  to  state  in  its  full 
force,  depends  wholly  upon  one  supposed  fact ; 
that  the  aole  object  of  the  apostolic  laying  on  of 
hands  was  to  impart  the  Iloly  Ghost  in  His  super- 
natural gifts.  But  is  that  a  fact?  Once  every 
week  I  wind  my  clock.  The  result  is,  that  with 
every  sfxty  minutes  which  elapse,  a  hammer  strikes 
the  gone:,  and  the  bell  tells  the  hour.  But  no  man 
would  argue  that  this  striking  of  the  hour  was  the 
sole  object  which  I  had  in  view  when  I  used  the 
key.  There  was  a  more  important  end  to  be 
secured,  in  confirming  the  regular  movement  of  the 


35 


wheels,  and  the   forward  march   of  the   hands  on 
the  dial  plate. 

Miracles  and  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  were  never  the  most  important  things  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Because  supernatural  powers 
followed  the  im[)Osition  of  apostolic  hands,  we 
have  no  right  to  conclude  that  the  ceremony  ha<l 
no  other  purpose  whatsoever. 

Notice  too,  how  thi^  view  is  strengthened  b}^  the 
history  of  the  Apostolic  Church  That  record 
clearly  shows  th:it  the  laying  on  of  hands  was  not 
necessary  to  the  ^rivi ng  of  supernatural  powers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

There  was  no  imposition  of  the  apostles'  hands 
upon  the  other  disciples  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost. 
Yet  "  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 
gav^  them  utterance."     Acts  ii :  4. 

We  have  no  account  of  Peter  laying  his  hands 
on  the  household  of  Cornelius  But  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them  also  in  the  gift  of  tongues 
Actsx:  44-46. 

Nothing  then  can  be  clearer  than  this ;  that  it  is 
a  mistake  to  assume  that  the  sole  end  of  this  rite 
was  to  secure  the  miraculous  influences  of  the 
Spirit.  There  were  other  ways  in  whicii  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  were  bestowed.  The  conclusion  is 
irresistible  that  the  laying  on  of  hands,  while  it 
was  accompanied  in  apostolic  days  by  the  wonders 


36 

of    spiritual    power,    had    some    wider    and    more 
permanent  end  in  view. 

Tlie  argument  that,  bec.iuse  miraculous  gifts 
were  anciently  given  with  the  layirjg  on  of  hands, 
therefore  the  rite  must  cease  when  supernitiiral 
powers  were  no  longer  the  possession  of  the  Church, 
proves  too  much. 

For  God  bore  witness  witii  these  gifts  to  the  act 
of  united  prayer.  Acts  iv:  31  He  followed  the 
preaching  of  the  word  \\y  imparting  the  gift  of 
tongues  to  Cornelius  and  his  household.  Acts  xi  : 
15.  Shall  we  therefore  reason  that  united  prayer 
is  no  longer  to  be  continued  ;  and  that  preaching 
should  be  dropped  from  the  agencies  of  the 
Church  ? 

But  there  is  a  crowning  evidence  for  the  perma- 
nency of  the  imposition  of  hands,  to  wliich  I  have 
not  yet  alluded. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Heb.  vi ;  2,  alludes 
to  three  pairs  or  couples  of  religious  doctrines,  as 
being  among  the  foundations  of  the  truth.  *'  There- 
fore," says  the  sacred  writer,  "leaving  the  princi- 
ples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto 
perfection;  not  laying  again  the  foundation  of 
rept  ntance  from  dead  works,  and  faith  toward  God  ; 
of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms  and  of  laying  on  of 
hands;  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment." 

Now  if  the  imposition   of  hands  was  some  rite 


37 

belonging  only  to  tlie  early  age  of  Christianity, 
and  not  meant  to  be  a  permanent  ordinance — how 
does  it  come  to  pass  that  the  New  Testament  thus 
puts  it  among  "the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,"  which  enter  into  the  very  "  foundation  "  of 
the  truth?  How  does  it  come  to  be  named  in 
the  midst  of  facts  and  realities  as  momentous  as 
repentance  and  faitli — as  enduring  as  the  resurrection 
and  the  judgment  ?  Albert  Barnes  replies  that  it 
may  refer  to  the  act  of  ordination  of  ministtrs,  or 
to  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  heal  the  sick,  or  yet 
again  to  the  act  by  which  the  miraculous  powers  of 
the  Spirit  were  iniparted  by  apostolic  hands. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  is  willing  to  admit 
that  it  may  have  meant  any  one  of  these.  He 
cheerfully  concedes  that  it  may  have  involved  any 
laying  on  of  hands  as  a  religious  ceremony — 
thou2:h  it  were  but  that  of  a  father  blessinir  his 
child.  Gen.  xlviii :  14,  But  why  should  such  acts 
as  these  be  classed  with  most  solemn  and  momen- 
tous verities?  Above  all,  why  should  "the  laying 
on  of  hands  "  be  yoked  with  "baptisms,"  precisely 
as  "faith"  is  yoked  with  "repentance,"  and 
*' eternal  judgment  "  with  "the  resurrection"?  Is 
it  uncharitable  to  other  Christians;  is  it  a  leaning 
to  superstition  ;  which  compels  him  to  believe  that 
he  is  following  tlie  practice  of  the  apostles  in 
adhering  to  this  special  form  of  reception  to  the 
Church  ? 


38 


Time  forhids  more  tiiaii  n  bar-  [illusion  to  rea- 
sons v.hicli  have  their  weiglit,  LUough  lying  outside 
the  Word  of  God. 

The  iiistory  ot  early  Christianity  after  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  is  full  of  references  to  this  rite  as 
universally  prevailing  in  the  Cliuich.  Precisely 
like  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  confirmation  seems  to 
have  come  down  in  undisputed  practice  from  the 
apostolic  example.  Is  it  argued  that  it  became  an 
empty  mummer}^,  abused  to  the  ends  of  priestcraft 
and  superstition?  True  I  but  tiie  same  abuse  char- 
acterized for  ages  the  two  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  supper  of  the  Lord. 

Moreover,  the  xavy  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of 
evangelical     Christians   mnintain    the    practice    of 
infant  baptism,  renders   absolutel}^  nece-sary  some 
method  of  puhlic  admission  to  the  Church,  of  those 
baptized    in    childhood.      Dedicated   by    Christian ' 
parents  to  the  Saviour's  service,  shall  there  be  no 
way    opened    by  which  the   young  Christian    can 
assume  all  the  responsibilities  of  such  a  consecra- 
tion?    Is  tliere  to  be   given  no  special  and  public 
act  in  which  he  can  voluntarily  say  that  the  repent- 
ance and  faij-h   which  were   hoped  for  and   prayed 
for  at  his  baptism,  are  now  his  own  ?  Every  Church 
which  baptizes  its  children,  has  some  ceremony  to 
receive   them   when   personally  re[)entnnt  and  be- 
lieving, on   their   voluntar}^   confession  of  Christ. 


39 

The  Reformed  Episcopalinn  has  no  word  of  dis- 
paragement for  any  appr<t{>ritite  form  which  other* 
may  adopt  He  only  chdajstliat  n^^ne  can  be  more 
appropriate,  more  solemn,  moie  beautiful,  or  more 
in  accord  with  "  apostolic  practice,"  than  confirma- 
tion. 

But  why  ask  those  baptized  in  adult  years,  to 
submit  to  tills  additional  ceremonial?  Tue  ans- 
wer is  two-fold.  We  follow  the  example  of  the 
apostles,  who  laid  their  hands  upon  the  heads  of 
those  who  had  in  mature  life  been  openly  baptized. 
But  beside  this  pattern  set  before  us,  we  recognize 
2i,  practical  value  in  the  confirmation  of  those  bap- 
tized in  adult  years, 

A  bishop  presides  over  many  parishes.  His 
visits  to  each  necessarily  cannot  be  frequent.  But 
when  he  does  come  for  the  administration  of  this 
rite,  it  affords  an  opportunity  for  those  who  have  been 
Ifed  to  Christ,  and  who  have  confessed  that  faith,  to 
renew  their  baptismal  obligations.  It  is  a  deepen- 
ing of  the  inscription  which  baptism  engraved  upon 
the  heart 

It  ma}^  be  added  that  there  are  few  greater  evils 
in  the  Church  of  Christ,  than  the  selfish  and  nar- 
row isolation  of  a  single  church.  Tliere  is  a  tend- 
ency  on  the  part  of  an  individual  paiish  to  become 
like  arailwa}''  train,  following  the  narrow  course 
which  its  own  track  marks,  and  its  own  hea'l-light 
illuminates,  regardless  of  all  that  may  be  on  either 


40 


side.  But  confirmation  is  an  act  in  which  an 
official  of  a  larger  organization  loarticipalea.  The 
provision  which  gives  the  act  of  administering  this 
rite  into  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  emphasizes  the 
principle  that  the  person  confirmed,  thereby  becomes 
not  a  member  of  this  congregation  or  that  parish, 
but  a  member  of  the  whole  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church.  He  thereby  pledges  himself  to  its  wel- 
fare and  its  progress. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  finds  his  love  for 
this  solemn  ordinance  deepened,  when  he  discovers 
that  his  broad,  catholic,  and  spiritual  view  of 
confirmation  has  met  with  the  approval  of  the  great 
leaders  of  Christendom.  Some  of  the  best  of  those 
who  have  chosen  another  method  of  confessing 
Christ,  have  given  to  this  rite  the  warmest  com- 
mendation. 

John  Calvin  boldly  declares  :  "  It  was  an  ancient 
custom  of  the  Church  for  the  children  of  Chris- 
tians, after  they  were  come  to  years  of  discretioD, 
to  be  presented  to  the  bishop  in  order  to  fulfil  that 
duty  which  was  required  of  adults  who  offered 
themselves  for  baptism."  The  great  apostle  of 
Preabyterianism  then  attacks  the  Roman  Catholic 
perversion  of  the  rito,  and  adds,  "Such  imposition 
of  hands  therefore,  as  is  simply  connected  with 
benediction,  I  highly  approve,  and  wish  it  were 
now  restored  to  its  primitive  use,  uncorrupted  by 
superstition."   (Calvin's  Institutes,  Vol.  II, p.  605) 


41 


The  same  testimony  to  the  antiquity  and  value 
of  confirmation  was  rej)eated  in  a  report  of  a  com- 
mittee on  the  subject — appointed  some  years  ago 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  (Yide  ''Common  Prayer  Interpreted;" 
p.  310.) 

Richard  Baxter — as  pure  a  saint  as  modern  times 
have  known — himself  a  Presbyterian,  wrote  a  care- 
fully prepared  argument  for  confirmation.  (Bax- 
ter's Works,  Vol.  XIY.) 

The  early  Methodists  were  generally  confirmed 
in  the  parish  churches  of  England.  Adam  Clarke, 
long  after  he  was  a  Wesleyan  preacher,  presented 
himself  for  confirmation  to  the  Bishop  of  Bristol. 
Forty  years  afterward,  he  writes  of  this  step,. 
"Upon  this  point  my  sentiments  are  not  changed." 
(Life  of  Adam  Clarke ;  Yol.  I,  p.  94  ) 

Dr.  Richard  S.  Slorrs,  a  very  Nestor  of  the  Con- 
gregatioijal  Churches,  has  introduced  a  mode  of 
public  rccognilion  of  bai)tized  children,  which 
partakes  of  some  of  the  features  of  our  confirma- 
tion.     {Christian  at- Work.) 

The  sweetest  and  most  nutritious  bread  may  be 
made  the  vehicle  of  poison.  God  lias  given  us 
nothing  which  may  not  be  abused  and  perverted 
from  its  true  purpose.  The  rite  of  confirmation 
aflTords  no  exception  to  the  rule.  Upon  it  a  fungus- 
growth  of  evils  developed  in  the  Cliurcli  from 
which  our  own  sprang,  that  largely  contributed  to 


42 


produce  the  separation  of  the  Reformed  F^piscopa- 
lian. 

Yet  these  evils  were  not  the  result  of  the  ordi- 
nance itself.  We  clearly  saw  that  thousands  of 
young  persons  were  brought  forward  for  confirma- 
tion, with  no  preparation  of  heart,  and  no  adequate 
sense  of  the  solemnity  of  the  act.  It  crowded  the 
•church  with  a  membership  of  souls  lacking  the 
essential  requirement  of  spiritual  membership  of 
Christ.  Yet  when  we  came  to  revise  the  service 
for  confirmation,  it  was  scarcely  changed  from  its 
old  form.  It  needed  no  such  alteration  as  the 
baptismal  office,  to  make  its  voice  chord  with  the 
Bible.  The  trouble  was  not  in  the  service  for  con- 
firmation. 

But  it  lay  deeper.  The  false  theory  of  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  to  which  I  shall  refer  in  a  later  ser- 
mon of  this  course,  poisoned  the  wholesome  bread 
of  tlie  doctrine  of  confirmation. 

Bishop  Doane  declared  that  "  the  bishops  are 
apostles."  (Bishop  G.  W.  Doane's  Missionary 
Bishop,  p.  22.) 

The  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  which  first  turned 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  Homeward,  speak 
of  bishops  as  "the  representatives  of  the  apos- 
tles." The  same  authority  tells  us  that  the  bishops 
are  to  be  considered  "as  if  they  were  apostles.  " 
"  The  apostles  may  still  be  said  to  be  among  us. 
Whatever  we  ought  to  do,  had  we  lived  when  tho 


43 


apostles  were  still  alive,  the  same  ouglit  we  to  do 
for  the  bishops  "  "  The  bishop  rules  the  whole 
Ohurch  below,  as  Christ  rules  it  above  "  "Our 
bishops  arc  armed  with  the  apostles'  power  to  con- 
fer spiritual  gifls.''^ 

How  inevitable — how  logical  the  result  I  The 
apostles  bestowed  spiritual  gifts  by  the  touch  of 
the  baud.  The  same  power  must  belong  to  their 
successors.  Thus  confirmation  becomes  a  magical 
rite,  dependent  for  its  value  and  efficacy  solely  upon 
the  contact  of  an  Episcopal  hand. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  purified  the  rite  of 
confirmation  when  he  showed  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  the  apostles  had  no  successors  in  their 
unique  and  solitary  work.  He  m-ade  the  laying  on 
of  hands  somethinj:  more  than  a  superstitious  and 
mechanical  act,  when  He  made  the  bishop  simply 
a,  presiding  minister,  receiving  the  new  convert  in 
the  name  of  the  Church. 

Still  more  directly  was  confirmation  perverted 
by  the  dangerous  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion. The  baptized  person  was  born  again  by  vir- 
tue of  the  sacramental  water.  The  Holy  Ghost 
liad  been  implanted  at  the  font.  That  regenera- 
tion could  not  be  supplemented  by  any  later  spirit- 
ual birth.  Dr.  Dix's  "  Trinit}^  Church  Catechism" 
declares  that  by  baptism  "  we  become  God's 
adopted    children    and    heirs    of    heaven  ;    we   are 


44 

cleansed  from  sin,  and  made  temples  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

What  further  preparation  for  the  reception  of 
confirmation  could  be  required  ?  Certainly  no 
spiritual  qualification  beyond  this  is  possible. 
And  so,  the  Pra3^er  Book  directed  every  minister, 
after  baptizing  a  child,  to  warn  the  parents  that 
they  should  "bring  him  to  the  bishop  "  to  be  con- 
firmed by  him,  when  he  could  repeat  the  Creed,  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the 
Church  Catechism  ! 

Is  it  strange  that  such  a  theory  of  confirmation 
opened  a  wide  door  to  unspiritualize  the  Church  ? 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  struck  at  the  tap- 
root of  the  weeds  which  choked  this  rite  with 
errors,  when  he  protested  against  the  idea  that  bap- 
tism and  regeneration  are  inseparably  tied  together. 
He  does  not  require  the  confirmed  person  to  "  be 
brought  to  the  bishop  to  be  confirmed."  It  must 
be  a  voluntary  act.  He  does  not  come  in  order  to 
be  made  a  Christian.  He  comes  because  through 
repentance  and  faith  he  has  been  pardoned,  washed 
in  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  true  soldier  of  his  country  is  always  such 
before  he  puts  on  the  uniform.  The  national  livery 
only  makes  all  the  world  know  what  his  heart  is. 
Confirmation  makes  no  man  a  soldier  of  the  Cross,, 
who  was  not  such  at  heart  before. 


THE      REFORMED      EPISCOPALIAN      AT 
THE    LORD'S    TABLE. 


^^And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said. 
Take  J  eat ;  this  is  My  body.  And  He  took  the  cup, 
and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink 
ye  all  of  it :  for  this  is  My  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission 
of  sins."     St.  Matt,  xxvi :   26-28. 


No  visible  institution  of  Christianity,  so  im- 
presses the  mind  and  the  imagination,  as  the  supper 
of  the  Lord.  Its  hoary  age  makes  it  venerable. 
It  antedates  the  Christian  Church  itself. 

"  Soldiers,"  cried  Napoleon,  to  his  army  in 
Egypt,  "  behold  the  Pyramids  !  Forty  centuries 
are  looking  down  upon  you." 

Yet  the  passover,  out  of  which  the  communion 
sprang,  the  passover  which  prefigured  the  sacri- 
fice of  Jesus,  as  the  supper  of  the  Lord  recalls 
it  to  memory,  belongs  to  the  age  when  the  Pyra- 
mids were  built.  The  communicant  is  looked  down 
upon  by  the  witness  of  four  thousand  years.  And 
when  the  Pyramids  shall  crumble,  the  Lord's  sup- 
(45) 


46 

per  shall  remain.  For,  "  as  oft  as  ye  do  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  forth  the 
Lord's  death  until  He  come." 

Little»wonder  if  superstition  has  seized  upon  so 
venerable  an  ordinance,  and  used  it  as  a  potent 
Tveapon  to  subvert  the  freedom  of  God's  children. 
ft  is  the  duty  of  every  Reformed  Episcopalian,  as 
■of  every  Christian,  to  know  the  exact  nature  of  so 
-conspicuous  and  solemn  an  institution  of  Christ. 
Let  us  attempt  that  duty  to-day,  with  prayer  for 
the  Spirit's  guidance. 

I.  What  is  the  Scriptural  and  Evangelical 
VIEW  OF  THE  Holy  Communion? 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  New  Testament  had  left 
us  without  excuse  if  we  blunder  as  to  the  true 
answer  to  this  inquiry.  For  doubt  and  contro- 
versy generally  arise  in  regard  to  things  concern- 
iing  whose  early  origin  history  has  left  us  in  the 
dark. 

The  windowless  "  round  towers  "  upon  the  rocky 
-coast  of  Ireland,  have  given  rise  to  whole  volumes 
of  controversial  literature.  Antiquarians  and 
scholars  have  debated  with  each  other  whether 
they  were  places  of  religious' worship,  or  fortresses 
for  defence.  But  the  discussion  carried  on  for 
<jenturies,  is  not  ended  yet.  For  history  contains 
no  line  or  word  to  tell  the  story  of  their  erection. 

But  the  record  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
supper  has  been   given  in  the  Bible  so  fully,   so 


47 

clearly,  and  with  such  repetition,  that  error  would 
seem  impossible  and  debate  unnecessary.  We  have 
four  distinct  and  separate  accounts,  differing  from 
each  other  in  regard  to  no  material  fact.  Three 
out  of  the  four  evangelists,  viz.,  St.  Matthew,  St. 
Mark,  and  St.  Luke,  have  told  the  story  nearly  in 
the  same  words.  It  would  seem  as  though  these 
three  accounts  were  sufficient.  But  when  the  apos- 
tle Paul  finds  the  Church  at  Corinth  perverting 
this  sacrament  from  its  holy  purpose,  he  gives  to 
that  Christian  community  a  fourth  narrative  of  the 
first  origin  of  the  Lord's  supper,  which  he  declares 
he  had  received  by  direct  inspiration  from  the 
Lord  Himself.     1  Cor.  xi :  23. 

Now  the  first  thing  which  attracts  the  attention 
of  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  who  studies  this 
fourfold  record,  is  the  simplicity  of  the  Lord's 
supper. 

Our  foreign  dispatches  tell  us  that  it  is  not  an 
unlikely  event,  that  the  imperial  crown  of  Germany 
may  at  any  time  be  set  upon  the  head  of  a  child  but 
five  years  old.  How  strangely  out  of  place,  upon 
such  an  infant — just  as  simple  and  childlike  by 
nature  as  the  little  one  in  your  home — will  be  the 
imperial  robes,  the  glittering  orders,  the  pompous 
splendors,  and  the  artificial  dignity  which  surrounds 
a  monarch  I 

Equally  unnatural,  in  the  light  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament accounts  of  the  Lord's  supper,  seem  to  the 


48 

Protestant  Christian,  the  pomp  and  ceremony  with 
which  the  communion  is  sometimes  celebrated.  If 
the  Lord  Jesus  had  tried  to  choose  a  method  of 
establishing  an  institution  in  his  Church,  which 
should  be  singularly  plain,  simple,  and  unencum- 
bered by  ritual,  He  could  hardly  have  selected  a 
different  way.  That  simplicity  appears  in  the  p^ace 
selected  for  the  last  supper.  No  splendid  temple, 
no  gorgeous  sanctuary,  no  decorated  shrine,  wit- 
nessed the  first  eucharist.  It  was  the  bare  upper 
chamber  of  some  Jewish  house  borrowed  for  the 
occasion. 

The  same  simplicity  is  revealed  in  the  total  want 
of  any  ritual  details.  Christ  wrote  out  no  rubrics 
of  direction  how  the  Church  was  to  perpetuate  this 
feast.  The  shelves  of  our  ecclesiastical  libraries 
are  crowded  with  "manuals  of  devotion,"  for  the 
use  of  communicants.  They  descend  to  minute 
directions  as  to  postures,  and  even  how  the  bread 
should  be  taken  in  the  hand,  and  the  chalice  lifted 
to  the  lips.  But  Christ  did  not  depart  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  sweet  yet  solemn  rite,  by  even  an 
allusion  to  these  minor  matters.  Christians  have 
quarrelled  whether  their  attitude  around  the  Lord's 
table  should  be  standing,  as  in  the  Greek  Church ; 
sitting,  as  is  the  practice  of  Presbyterians ;  or 
kneeling,  as  with  Episcopalians.  Yet  no  one  of 
these  postures  is  that  of  the  apostles,  for  tliey 
reclined  on  couches,  as   the  old   Oriental    fashion 


49 


was  at  feasts.  "  The  simplicity  which  is  in  Christ,*^ 
forbade  attention  to  such  details.  The  Reformed 
Episcopalian  kneels,  simply  because  the  whole 
question  of  attitude  is  plainly  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence, in  which  every  Church  may  exercise  its 
choice. 

Observe,  too,  how  this  simple  and  natural  idea 
of  the  communion  is  preserved  in  the  symbols  em- 
ployed. Jesus  might  have  chosen  s6me  striking, 
unique,  unprecedented  emblems  of  His  dying  love. 
Instead  of  that,  He  takes  the  bread  and  the  wine — 
both  of  which  the  Jews  used  in  keeping  the  pass- 
over,  and  which  were  therefore  right  before  Him. 
He  seemed  to  say,  "  I  make  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  act  of  your  daily  life  a  blessed  and  sacred 
thing.  I  hallow  with  the  remembrance  of  My  love 
to  you,  even  your  partaking  of  food  and  drink.*' 
It  was  anticipating  St.  Paul's  language :  "  Whether 
ye  eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the 
glory  of  God."  When  St.  Paul  rebukes  the  Corin- 
thian Church  for  its  failure  to  discern  the  real  pur- 
pose of  this  sacrament,  he  says,  **  Wherefore  breth- 
ren, when  ye  come  together  to  eat,  tarry  one  for 
another."  How  clear  it  makes  it  that  the  Lord's 
supper  was  a  simple  meal  in  memory  of  Christ. 
Not  a  word  even  to  indicate  that  the  presence  of  a 
minister  was  necessary  to  the  due  celebration  of 
the  rite  1 

The  fourfold  history  of  the  institution  of  this 


60 

sacrament,  leads  the  Reformed  Episcopalian,  in 
perfect  accord  with  other  evangelical  believers,  to 
regard  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  special  memorial  of 
Christ's  atoning  death. 

In  one  of  our  public  parks  a  statue  stands,  to 
keep  in  memory  for  all  generations  a  great  states- 
man whom  it  represents  in  marble.  That  commem- 
oration is  the  one  central  idea  with  which  it  w^as 
erected.  It  doubtless  serves  other  purposes  a& 
well.  The  great  pleasure  ground  is  ornamented  by 
its  presence.  It  bears  witness  to  the  liberality  of 
the  rich,  and  the  self-denying  patriotism  of  the 
poor.  It  forms  a  bond  of  union  between  the  mul- 
titude of  contributors  to  its  erection.  But  these 
do  not  constitute  the  one  great  end  which  its  erec- 
tion had  in  view.  If  these  subsidiary  purposes  be 
crowded  to  the  front,  and  so  kept  before  the  public 
mind  that  the  remembrance  of  the  dead  hero  shall 
be  lost  sight  of,  better  that  the  sculptor  never 
touched  chisel  to  the  stone  1  A  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  supper  which  belittles  this  memorial  fea- 
ture, has  lost  the  primal  end  for  which  the  com- 
munion was  instituted. 

Our  Lord  used  language  in  His  gift  of  this  ordi- 
nance  to  Ilis  disciples,  which  can  be  only  reasonably 
and  consistently  explained  on  the  basis  of  its  being 
primarily  a  memorial  rite.  He  broke  the  bread, 
and  gave  it  to  them, with  the  words,  *' Take,  eat,  this 
is  My  body."     Now,  setting  aside  for  the  present. 


51 

-the  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  a  miraculous  change 
by  which  the  bread  was  altered  in  its  substance- 
into  the  literal  body  of  Christ,  what  could  He  have 
meant  by  words  like  these?  Precisely  what  a 
father  would  mean,  who,  when  about  to  cross  the 
sea,  gives  his  picture  to  his  children,  and  says,. 
"  This  is  myself."  He  does  not  mean  that  the  por- 
trait is  actually  his  own  personal  being,  but  that  it 
represents  it  And  the  only  value  of  such  a  rep- 
resentation is  that  it  helps  the  memory  to  recall 
him.  So,  too,  He  speaks  of  the  wine,  "  He  took 
the  cup,  and  when  He  had  given  thanks,  He  saidy 
This  is  My  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  i& 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.''  The 
moment  that  you  fall  short  of  the  Popish  theory  of 
a  trausubstantiation  of  the  wine,  you  must  of  neces- 
sity understand  Christ  to  mean  that  the  wine  was  fit 
representation  of  that  blood  which  He  was  to  shed 
for  sinners.  It  was  ever  afterward  to  appeal  to  the^ 
memory  of  the  believer. 

Nor  need  we  depend  on  a  mere  interpretation  of 
His  words  in  giving  the  emblems.  St,  Luke  dis- 
tin  :tly  states  that  Jesus  told  the  disciples  what  was- 
the  purpose  of  these  symbols,  and  of  the  Christian's- 
partaking  of  them.  "  This  do,"  He  said,  "  i» 
remembrance  of  Me."  Besides,  when  St.  Paul 
received  from  Christ  Himself  the  account  which  he 
gives  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthian  believers^ 
he  also  declares  that  the  very  words  of  Christ  were 


52 

those  which  St.  Luke  has  recorded.  And  as  if  to 
make  it  clear  that  it  was  a  ceremony  to  be  perpet- 
uated in  the  Church  mainly  as  a  memorial  rite,  St. 
Paul  tells  us  that  Jesus  followed  the  giving  of  the 
cup  with  this  still  more  explicit  expression  of  His 
will,  "  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  shall  drink  it,  in 
remembrance  of  Me  " 

Obsei've,  too,  the  appropriateness  of  the  emblems 
to  bring  out  in  conspicuous  relief,  the  memory  of 
Christ's  sacrifice.  The  bread  of  which  they  partook 
had  been  before  that  hour  employed  by  Christ  as 
a  type  of  His  body.  St.  John  vi:  35-58.  But  now 
it  is  broken.  Each  account  mentions  with  particu- 
larity this  fact  of  the  bread  being  thus  treated  in 
His  hands.  As  if  Christ  would  have  the  fact  of 
His  blessed  body  being  bruised  and  pierced,  the 
one  prominent  idea  in  the  recollection  of  His  peo- 
ple. In  the  City  of  Boston,  thousands  daily  pass  a 
statue  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  But  it  represents  him 
in  the  act  of  taking  the  fetters  from  the  limbs  of  a 
slave.  It  clearly  seems  to  say  that  those  who  put 
that  striking  figure  there,  were  not  merely  anxious 
to  have  posterity  remember  the  great  president, 
but  remember  him  in  that  particular  act  of  his 
eventful  life.  So  do  the  broken  bread  and  the  flow- 
ing wine  touch  the  memory  of  the  Christian  with 
the  recollection  of  a  Saviour  in  the  act  of  giving  His 
life  for  sinners. 

Thus,    the    Reformed     Episcopalian     finds    no 


53 


incomprehensible  *' mystery "  in  the  communion 
as  a  means  of  grace.  He  does  not  approach  the 
Lord's  table  with  the  feeling  that  it  is  some  magic 
charm  in  which  he  is  to  find  spiritual  help,  as  the 
Romanist  expects  to  find  it  in  touching  a  relic  of 
the  saints,  or  the  wood  of  "  the  true  cross."  Its 
philosophy  is  as  clear  as  the  noonday. 

For  what  can  rekindle  in  the  heart  the  glow  of 
love,  like  the  stirring  of  the  memory  ?  In  days  of 
war,  your  voluntary  substitute  took  your  place  in 
the  ranks,  and  died  upon  the  field  of  battle.  Can 
you  bring  out  from  the  place  in  which  you  treasure 
it,  the  memento  which  he  sent  you  when  he  lay 
dying,  and  which  is  stained  with  his  heart's  blood, 
and  3^et  feel  no  stirring  of  your  soul's  deepest  love? 

But  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  does  not  forget 
that  together  with  this  memorial  idea  of  the  com- 
munion, another  great  truth  is  coupled. 

The  Lord's  supper  is  a  visible  Gospel.  We  can- 
not see  these  emblems  of  the  death  of  Jesus  with- 
out  their  preaching  to  us  eloquently  and  powerfully 
the  doctrine  of  His  atonement.  Why,  then,  do  we 
not  satisfy  all  that  this  sacrament  demands,  when 
we  have  looked  upon  the  consecrated  symbols  of 
His  dying  love  ?  Why  eat  the  bread  ?  Why  drink 
the  wine  ?  Will  not  our  love  be  wakened  by  the 
sight  of  this  pictorial  representation  of  His  suffer- 
ing for  us  ?  We  have  no  hesitation  in  answering. 
Our  bodily  life  is  itself  an  emblem  of  our  spiritual 


51 


life.  Precisely  as  we  sustain  our  bodily  existence^ 
by  partaking  of  food  and  drink,  so  by  faith  do  we 
feed  upon  Christ.  The  Old  Testament  had  fore- 
shadowed it,  when  the  prophet,  turning  from  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  cried  from 
liis  walchtower  of  vision,  "  The  just  shall  live  by 
faith."  Habak.  ii :  4.  Christ  Himself  echoed  the 
same  great  truth,  when  long  before  the  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed.  He  solemnly  declared, 
*'  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and 
drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you." 

That  He  did  not  refer  to  the  communion  in  these 
strongly  figurative  words,  is  plain.  He  uttered 
them  at  least  a  year  before  He  instituted  the  Lord's 
supper.  He  spoke  to  an  assemblage  of  Jews,  who 
could  by  no  possibility  know  anything  of  this 
ordinance  to  be  established  in  the  future.  More- 
over, when  He  discovered  that  they  only  saw  in 
them  a  gross  and  earthly  meaning,  and  wondered 
how  they  were  to  eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood, 
He  corrected  their  blunder.  He  told  them  that  in 
His  body  He  was  to  ascend  to  heaven,  and  that 
under  the  figure  of  His  body  and  blood,  He  had 
spoken  of  His  Spirit.  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  behold 
the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before  ? 
It  is  the  Spirit  which  quickeneth.  The  flesli  profit- 
eth  nothing.  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they   are   Spirit   and   they   are   life."     "  He    that 


5d 


believeth  on  Me  hath  everlasting  life."     John  vi : 
62,  G3. 

If  any  words  could  express  more  clearly  than 
these,  that  simple  trust  in  Christ  and  His  word, 
sustains  the  spiritual  life,  as  eating  and  drinking 
sustain  the  bodily  life,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  what 
those  words  could  be  What  follows  ?  Evidently 
enough,  that  when  the  Saviour  established  the 
Lord's  supper.  He  ordained  this  eating  of  the 
bread,  this  drinking  of  the  wine,  to  be  a  symbol  of 
the  faith  by  which  we  must  receive  Him  into  our 
souls,  and  live  spiritually  upon  Him. 

It  maybe  added  that  the  Reformed  Episcopalian 
sees  one  other  great  truth  brought  clearly  before 
him  in  this  symbolic  rite.  In  thus  entering  into 
fellowship  with  his  suffering  Lord,  he  also  becomes 
a  member  of  the  vast  brotherhood,  whatever  be  the 
name  they  bear,  who  partake  of  Christ  by  faith, 
"the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people."  By 
trust  in  Christ,  they  "  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
meat,  and  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink."  They 
symbolize  and  picture  forth  that  loving  fellowship 
by  this  visible  gathering  around  the  same  table,  and 
exhibit  their  common  love  and  common  interest  in 
each  other,  by  calling  their  memorial  feast,  "  the 
communion." 

No  wonder  that  basing  his  view  of  the  Lord's 
supper  upon  the  teaching  of  the  word  of  God  alone, 
the  Reformed  Episcopalian  opens  wide  his  arms  ta 


56 

ivelcome  to  this  sweet  and  precious  feast,  all  who 
Jove  his  "  Divine  Lord  in  sincerity  and  truth." 
II.   What   has    the   Reformed    Episcopalian 

DONE  TO  RESCUE  THE  LoRD'S  SUPPER  FROxM  UNSCRIP- 
TURAL  PERVERSION? 

William  of  Orange,  the  leader  of  Protestant  faith 
and  civil  liberty,  against  the  Church  of  Rome  and 
the  tyranny  of  Spain,  once  placed  his  young  son  as 
a  hostage  in  the  hands  of  Philip  II,  the  Spanish 
king.  When  at  last  restored  to  his  father,  the 
youth  had  been  transformed.  He  had  become  a 
Spaniard  in  national  spirit,  a  tyrant  in  political 
principle,  and  a  bigoted  Romanist  in  religion. 
Where  lay  the  secret  of  so  vast  and  complete  a 
<;hange  ?  Simply  here.  The  Spanish  teachers  began 
early.  The  Reformed  Episcopalian  who  reads  the 
history  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ,  discovers 
a  like  amazing  transformation  in  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper.  He  sees  the  simple,  natural, 
logical  truth  that  was  embodied  in  a  sacred  meal, 
taken  in  common  by  believers,  to  commemorate  the 
death  of  Christ,  changed  into  an  appalling  mystery 
and  gorgeous  ceremonial.  He  sees  the  bread  no 
longer  broken,  but  in  the  form  of  a  wafer.  He  sees 
the  wine,  in  bold  violation  of  the  Saviour's  last 
command,  taken  from  the  laity  and  reserved  for  the 
clergy  alone.  He  sees  the  table  which  bore  wit- 
ness to  the  primitive  principle  of  the  communion  as 
a  solemn,   commemorative   feast,  replaced   by  aa. 


57 

altar,  on  which  a  priest  offers  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments  as  a  sacrifice  to  God.  He  sees  the  wafer 
lifted  up  like  an  idol,  and  the  people  bowing  in 
prostrate  adoration  as  before  God  Himself.  He 
sees  the  universal  Church  accepting  for  a  thousand 
years  the  doctrine  that  the  priest  by  his  consecrat- 
ing act  has  transmuted  the  bread  and  wine  into  the 
literal  and  actual  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer. 
How  came  to  pass  so  amazing  a  revolution?  The 
answer  is  that  the  enemy  began  early.  There  is  no- 
trace  of  such  a  ceremony  or  such  a  doctrine  in  the 
New  Testament.  We  read  of  "  the  breaking  of 
bread,  and  prayer "  in  apostolic  history,  and  the 
epistles  to  the  apostolic  churches.  We  see  the- 
Christians  gather  at  the  simple  meal  which  calls  to 
their  memory  their  suffering  Lord.     But  that  is  all. 

Yet,  no  sooner  do  we  leave  inspired  teaching,  and 
open  the  pages  of  the  writers  known  as  the  "  early 
fathers,"  than  the  perversion  of  the  Lord's  supper 
begins  to  appear.  The  good  seed  sown  by  the  Son 
of  Man  was  not  yet  grown,  when  the  tares  sprang 
up  also. 

No  heresy  of  the  Roman  Church  so  directly  led 
to  the  Reformation,  as  that  of  transubstantiation — 
the  doctrine  that  what  had  been  up  to  their  conse- 
cration, bread  and  wine,  became  by  miraculous 
change  the  actual  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer. 
Yet,  so  deeply  rooted  was  this  monstrous  theory, 
that  even  Luther  could  not  fully  rid  his  own  mind 


58 

of  its  remnants.  Rejecting  transubstantiation,  he 
tried  to  reconcile  bis  loyalty  to  God's  word  with 
what  he  called  "  consubstantiation  " — the  notion 
that  while  the  bread  and  wine  did  not  lose  their 
nature,  and  were  still  bread  and  wine  after  conse- 
cration, yet  in  union  with  them  was  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ. 

But  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  on 
this  point  gave  no  uncertain  sound.  They  may 
have  entertained  false  theories  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism, bat  they  did  not  find  on  that  field  the  battle 
which  they  were  to  fight.  The  whole  struggle  of  the 
English  reformation  raged  about  the  supper  of  the 
Lord.  And  here  they  drew  broad  and  unmistakable 
the  Scripture  line  between  Christ's  truth  and 
Rome's  perversion.  Let  it  ever  be  remembered 
that  of  the  many  hundreds  who  died  amidst  the 
flames  of  martyrdom,  which  Bloody  Mary  lighted, 
not  one  who  did  not  give  his  life  rather  than  accept 
a  false  doctrine  concerning  the  communion.  From 
Cranmer,  the  primate  and  archbishop,  down  to  the 
humblest  peasant  and  artisan,  the  English  witnesses 
for  Christ,  were  witnesses  even  unto  death,  against 
€very  form  of  perverting  the  simplicity  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  (Blakeney's  Hist.  Prayer  Book, 
pp.  528,  529.) 

It  would  be  natural  to  conclude,  that  whatever 
error  might  find  place  in  the  Church  of  England 
and  her  daughter  in  America,  it  would  be  impos- 


59 


sible  that  they  should  wander  from  the  truth  con- 
cerning the  communion.  Here,  surely,  the  princi- 
ples for  which  Cranmer  and  Latimer,  Ridley  and 
Hooper  died,  will  be  guarded  as  men  guard  their 
homes  and  the  lives  of  their  children. 

But  the  weed  of  a  false  doctrine  of  the  eucharist 
is  one  which  has  tough  roots,  and  readily  sprouts 
again.  From  Reformation  days  there  were  those  in 
the  English  Church  who  shrank  from  the  strong, 
clear  views  of  Cranmer,  and  his  companions  in 
martyrdom.  They  gained  the  ear  of  Elizabeth, 
eager  to  reconcile  her  Popish  subjects  to  a  Protes- 
tant liturgy.  They  led  her  to  revise  the  commu- 
nion service,  so  as  to  abolish  a  rubric  denying  the 
so-called  "  real  presence."  (Blakeney's  Hist.  Prayer 
Book,  p.  449.)  The  same  class  of  religious 
teacliers  still  further  corrupted  the  service  when 
the  prayer  book  was  revised  in  the  days  of  that 
worthless  king,  Charles  II.  (Proctor's  Hist.  Prayer 
Book,  chap,  v.)  The  germs  of  a  doctrine  which  the 
reformers  died  at  the  stake  rather  than  accept,  were 
sown  in'  the  soil  of  the  service.  They  sprang  up 
here  and  there  in  the  Church,  but  only  reached 
their  baleful  harvest  time  when  fifty  years  ago 
the  Oxford  Tracts  appeared.  From  that  hour 
no  Canada  thistles  ever  spread  more  rapidly. 
To-day,  the  doctrine  of  the  "  real  presence  "  per- 
vades our  mother  Church,  and  is  taught  directly  or 
indirectly  by  the  vast  majority  of  her  clergy.    What 


60 

is  that  doctrine  ?  Briefly,  it  is  that  while  there  i» 
no  change  of  substance  in  the  bread  and  wlne^ 
Christ  is  spiritually  present  in  them  after  the  con- 
secration. Mark  the  language.  Every  Protestant 
believes  with  Archbishop  Cranmer,  that  Christ  is 
really  present  in  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  hearts  of 
*'  all  them  that  worthily  receive  the  same."  (Cran- 
mer's  Answer  to  Gardiner.)  But  the  advocates  of 
the  notion  of  the  real  presence,  mean  such  presence 
in  the  bread  and  in  the  wine.  The  officiating  priest 
by  consecration  has  imparted  to  the  elements  them- 
selves the  spiritual  presence  of  Jesus  Christ.  Do 
not  think  that  I  exaggerate.  Listen  to  this  lan- 
guage from  an  accepted  advocate  of  the  doctrine  : 
"  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  sacramentally 
united  to  the  bread  and  wine,  so  that  Cbrist  is  truly 
given  to  the  faithful."  *' His  flesh,  together  with 
the  bread  ;  and  His  blood,  together  with  the  wine." 
(Tracts  for  the  Times,  N.  Y.  Edition,  1839,  Vol.  1, 
p.  199.)  "The  nature  of  this  mystery  is  such 
that  when  we  receive  the  bread  and  wine,  we  also 
together  with  them,  receive  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ."  (Ibid,  p.  214.)  Dr.  Pusey  declares  in 
his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford, "  There  is  a  true^ 
real  and  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  at  the  holy 
supper  *  *  *  *  independently  of  our  faith." 

Dr.  Pusey  writes  of  the  Lord's  supper,  "It  is 
truly  flesh  and  blood,  and  these  received  into  us- 
cause  that  we  are  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  us." 


CI 


Dr.  Dix's  Trinity  Church  Catechism  says,  "  The 
bread  and  wine  become  Christ's  body  and  bloody 
yet  remaining  true  bread  and  wine."     (p.  51). 

Dr.  James  DeKoven  writes,  "  Believing  in  the 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the 
consecrated  elements^  I  believe  that  presence  t )  be 
in  no  sense  material  or  corporal,  but  ppirituaU 
though  none  the  less  real  and  true."  (Letter  to 
certain  Wisconsin  clergymen,  18t4.) 

In  Pusey's  '^  Eirenicon,"  a  work  written  to  prove 
how  slight  are  the  differences  between  the  Church 
of  England  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  lie  refers  ta 
''•  Palmer  on  the  Church,"  as  a  book  "  framed  word 
for  word  on  our  formularies,  which  received  the 
sanction  of  two  archbishops,  and  which  used  to  be 
recommended  to  candidates  for  holy  orders.'^ 
From  the  work  referred  to  he  quotes  these  remark- 
able words  :  "  She  (the  Church  of  England)  believes 
that  the  eucharist  is  not  the  sign  of  an  absent  body^ 
and  that  those  who  partake  of  it  receive  not  merely 
the  figure,  or  shadow,  or  sign  of  an  absent  body, 
but  the  reality  itself.  And  as  Christ's  Divine  and 
human  natures  are  inseparably  united,  so  she 
believes  that  we  receive  in  the  eucharist,  not  only^ 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  Christ  Himselfj, 
both  God  and  man."     (Eirenicon,  p.  31.) 

Now,  observe  the  exact  idea  which  these  quota- 
tations  give.  It  is  that  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  holy  communion,  is  not  a  presence  in  the 


62 

hearts  of  believers.  It  is  "  independent  of  their 
faith."  But  it  is  in  the  bread  and  in  the  wine.  In 
one  word,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  placed,  through  a 
man's  consecration  of  the  elements,  in  a  piece  of 
bread,  and  in  a  cup  of  wine  I  Is  the  Roman  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  any  more  degrading  to 
the  Spirit  of  God  than  this  ?  Or  is  it  strange  that 
other  perversions  of  the  truth  should  have  followed' 
in  its  train  ? 

If  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  upon  the  Lord's 
table  are  really  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  then 
it  logically  follows  that  the  table  ceases  to  be  such. 
It  has  become  an  "  altar,"  on  which  is  offered  anew 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  as  an  oblation  to  the 
Father.  "  It  is  not,"  says  Dr.  Dis,  "  a  sacrifice  by 
way  of  a  new  death,  but  by  way  of  a  standing 
memorial  of  His  death.  It  pleads  to  the  Eternal 
Father,  sets  forth  before  the  world,  and  applies  to 
our  souls  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ." 

Then,  too,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  later  sermon  of 
this  course,  the  minister  becomes  a  sacrificing 
"  priest,"  who  oflfers,  like  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and  blood.  Hence  it  is 
that  in  the  old  Church,  the  word  *'  minister  "  has 
come  to  be  superseded  by  that  of  "  priest."  We  no 
longer  hear  of  a  faithful  parish  minister,  but  a 
"  parish  priest."  Yet  we  have  only  to  turn  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  learn  that  every  trace  of 
a  sacrificing  priesthood  like  that  of  Aaron  passed 


63 

away  when  Jesus  offered  His  "  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever,"  and  "  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God.'^ 
Christ  is  the  only  priest  of  the  Christian,  except 
that  every  true  believer,  minister  or  layman,  is  one 
of  "  a  royal  priesthood." 

But,  above  all,  the  whole  system  known  as 
"  ritualism,"  by  which  the  public  worship  of  the 
Church  once  so  dear  to  us,  has  been  completely 
disguised,  is  based  on  this  false  theory  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  The  vestments  which  have  super- 
seded the  simple  robes  worn  formerly  by  ministers 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  are  imitations 
of  those  which  are  supposed  to  have  been  worn  by 
priests  who  offered  sacrifices.  A  leader  of  the 
Church  of  England  ritualists,  in  answer  to  the 
question,  "  What  meaning  do  you  attach  to  the 
vestments?"  replied,  *'  I  take  them  to  be  a  distinc- 
tive dress  of  a  priest  at  the  time  of  celebrating  the 
holy  communion."  (Principles  at  Stake,  p.  142.) 
In  the  earlier  days  of  the  Church  out  of  which  our 
own  sprang,  it  was  sometimes  customary  to  bow  the 
head  at  the  name  of  Jesus  in  the  Creed,  to  signify 
belief  in  His  Divinity.  To-day,  a  far  more  pro- 
found obeisance  is  made  at  multiplied  points  of  the 
service,  but — mark  it  well — always  toward  the 
table.  Why  ?  Because  that  table  i3  now  *'  the 
altar,"  with  super-altar  upon  it,  and  crucifix  crown- 
ing it.  And  if  this  theory  of  the  "  real  presence,'' 
and  a  sacrifice  in  the  Lord's  supper,  is  true,  they 


64 

are  right  who  bow.  For,  if  the  awful  presence  of 
the  Son  of  God  is  on  that  table,  then,  surely,  I  can- 
not prostrate  myself  in  an  adoration  too  profound. 
But  if  it  be  an  unscriptural  and  idolatrous  doctrine, 
then  this  bowing  toward  the  so-called  altar,  is  as 
offensive  to  God  as  prostration  before  a  Chinese 
image  or  an  African  gree-gree. 

Back  to  the  word  of  God  the  Reformed  Episco- 
palian has  gone.  Our  Church  has  planted  its  feet 
upon  the  rock,  in  restoring  the  Lord's  supper  to  its 
primitive  simplicity.  Open  your  Book  of  Common 
JPrayer,  and  in  its  fore-front  you  find  a  "  Declara- 
tion of  Principles."  In  the  name  of  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,  it  condemns  as  "  erroneous  and 
strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God's  word,"  the 
theory  "  that  a  Christian  minister  is  a  priest  in  any 
other  sense  than  that  in  which  all  believers  are  a 
royal  priesthood  ;  that  the  Lord's  table  is  an  altar 
on  which  the  oblation  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  is  offered  anew  to  the  Father ;  and  that  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  pres- 
ence in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine." 

We  framed  our  whole  liturgy  on  the  principles 
laid  down  in  this  declaration.  From  cover  to  cover, 
you  will  nowhere  find  a  minister  of  the  Gospel 
called  a  'Spriest."  We  blotted  out  the  dangerous 
expression  which  styled  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine,  "these  holy  mysteries."  We  saw  in  them 
no  mysterious  nature,  but  only  simple  and  appro- 


65 

priate  emblems.  We  went  back  to  the  reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  found  that  Cranmer 
and  his  fellow- martyrs  had  dropped  out  f:om  the 
communion  service,  as  it  was  first  prepared,  a 
Romish  prayer,  entitled  the  "  oblation."  The  influ- 
ence of  the  high  church  Bishop  Seabury  had  pre- 
vailed to  have  it  inserted  in  the  American  prayer 
book.  We  removed  it  once  more,  and  restored  the 
service  for  communion  to  the  Protestant  form  la 
which  the  reformers  had  bequeathed  it.  We 
required  that  the  minister  in  delivering  the  bread 
to  the  communicant,  should  call  it  "  bread,"  and 
when  delivering  the  cup  should  call  it  ''  wine  " — 
that  thus  the  Church  should  bear  perpetual  witness 
to  the  fact  that  no  change  had  taken  place  in  these 
emblems  through  the  prayer  of  consecration. 

We  found  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
had  omitted,  under  the  same  inspiration  of  Bishop 
Seabury,  the  rubric  of  the  Church  of  England  posi- 
tively declaring  that  the  consecration  prayer  does 
not  change  the  nature  of  the  elements,  and  that  no 
worship  of  those  elements  is  intended  by  kneeling 
at  the  communion.  We  put  it  back  where  Cranmer 
once  had  written  it. 

Then,  to  crown  the  work,  we  graved  it  upon  the 
very  constitution  of  this  Church,  that  no  altar 
should  ever  be  permitted  in  any  edifice  in  which 
Reformed  Episcopalians  should  worship. 

In  an  evil  hour  Archbishop  Cranmer  yielded  to 


66 

the  Bloody  Mary's  threats,  and  signed  a  paper 
recanting  his  own  protest  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  com- 
munion. Bitterly  did  he  repent  his  cowardly  act, 
and  when  the  flames  leaped  up  around  him  in  the 
hour  of  his  martyrdom,  he  thrust  his  right  hand, 
which  had  written  his  recantation,  into  the  hottest 
fire.  *'  Unworthy  hand  I  unworthy  hand  I"  cried 
the  penitent  martyr. 

Reformed  Episcopalian,  remember  that  for  you 
to  yield  one  hair's -breadth  to  the  ritualism  which 
has  crept  like  a  mildew  over  your  old  Church,  is  to 
do  before  God  and  angels  and  men,  the  very  act  of 
which  Cranmer's  ^*  unworthy  hand  "  was  guilty. 


THE     REFORMED     EPISCOPALIAN    AND 
HIS   MINISTER. 


^^Ancl  whosoever  will  he  chief  among  you,  let  him 
he  your  servant ;  even  as  the  Son  of  man  came, 
not  to  he  ministered  unto,  hut  to  minister,  and  to 
give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.''^  St.  Matt. 
XX :  27,  28. 


A  child  is  born  into  this  worki  as  some  shell  or 
bit  of  sea-weed  is  tossed  by  the  waves  upon  the 
shore.  It  lives  by  no  choice  of  its  own.  But  Jesus 
Christ  always  spoke  of  His  birth  as  His  "  comino^.'* 
It  was  His  own  voluntary  act  which  laid  the  Babe 
of  Bethlehem  in  the  manger-cradle. 

Like  a  leaf  that  flutters  down  upon  the  hur- 
rying stream,  the  future  of  a  child  is  shaped  and 
controlled  by  currents  and  eddies,  the  drift  of 
which  baffles  all  human  prophecy.  No  such  con- 
tingencies affected  the  child  over  whose  birth  the 
angels  sang  their  carols.  He  came  into  this  world 
with  a  definite  mission,  which  no  power  of  man  or 
devil  could  thwart.  He  was  born  only  that  this 
pre-arranged  destiny  might  be  carried  out.  *'  To 
this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into 
the  world,"  said  Christ,  to  tlie  wondering  Pilate. 

When  the  twelve,  fired  by  a  low  ambition  for 
power,  and  jealous  of  each  other,  quarreled  for 
(67) 


68 

liigh  rank  in  Christ's  earthly  kingdom,  He  rebuked 
them  with  the  language  of  the  text.  He  Himself 
had  but  one  purpose  from  His  birth  at  Bethlehem 
to  the  cross  on  Calvary.  It  was  to  be  a  minister, 
a  servant  of  other  men,  for  such  is  the  exact  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  word  in  which  He  described  His 
office. 

In  this  text  the  double  work  of  Jesus  is  con- 
"tained,  like  the  twin  seeds  in  their  shell.  He  was 
<to  be  a  minister  to  men,  and  a  ransom  for  men. 
That  last  feature  of  work  He  wrought  out  ''once 
ibr  all."  No  man  can  add  to  the  complete- 
ness of  that  concerning  which  with  His  dying  breath 
Ho  cried,  "  It  is  finished." 

But  His  ministry  for  men  goes  on.  Through 
•^those  whom  He  still  sends,  He  ministers  to  the  sin- 
ful and  the  lost. 

I.  The   Reformed    Episcopalian  believes  in, 

AND  HONORS  A  MINISTRY  AUTHORIZED  AND  APPOINTED 

.iBY  Christ  Himself. 

lleligious  controversy  has  sometimes  served  to 
wrap  the  truth  in  fog-clouds  of  doubt.  But  the 
Ijattie  waged  around  the  question  of  the  ministry, 
tias  certainly  had  the  opposite  effect.  Its  fierce 
tthunderstorms  have  cleared  the  theological  atmos- 
rphere,  and  left  some  points  so  sharply  defined  that 
further  discussion  seems  unnecessary. 

Romanist  and  Protestant  agree  so  far  as  this, 
ihat  both  confess  that  the  word  of  God  author- 


69 

izes  the  appointment  of  a  class  of  men  whose 
lives  shall  be  wholly  consecrated  to  the  sacred 
ministry.  There  is  substantial  unanimity  in  ac- 
knowledging that  our  Lord  Himself  appointed 
men  to  such  an  office,  in  His  choice  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  in  the  sending  forth  the  seventy  dis- 
ciples. Matt,  ix:  5-3;  Luke  x:  1.  Vast  multi- 
tudes had  become  His  nominal  followers.  But  out 
of  their  ranks  He  selected  these,  as  soldiers  might 
be  selected  from  the  army  to  become  officers  and 
ieaders  in  the  campaign.  The  loftiest  tree  that  ever 
towered  toward  heaven,  and  shadowed  the  earth 
with  its  spreading  branches,  ha'l  its  birth  in  some 
tiny  seed,  ^o,  the  germ  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Gospel  is  in  this  simple  historic  fact  that  Christ 
made  selection  from  those  who  followed  Him  in 
His  brief  earthly  work,  of  some  to  be  leaders  in 
proclaiming  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  point  to  be  kept  in  view  is  not  whether  all 
of  Christ's  people  should  not  be  in  some  sense 
preachers  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  not  whether  every  lay- 
man is  not  bound  to  spread  the  glad  tidings.  But 
the  root-principle  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  this 
whole  subject  of  the  ministry,  is  in  the  record  of 
the  four  Gospels,  that  the  Saviour  sent  out  a 
selected  class  of  His  disciples  with  a  special  com- 
mission in  proclaiming  the  word.  To  this  extent, 
it  is  clear  that  the  ministry  rests  solidly  upon 
Christ's  own  authority. 


70 

In  the  great  plain  of  the  Sacramento  Yalle}',  I 
have  seen  a  rivulet  take  its  rise  among  the  foot- 
hills, grow  to  the  proportions  of  a  river,  flow  on 
with  strong  current  for  a  time,  and  then  strangely 
disappear,  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  discover  it. 
Such  a  failure  is  a  strange  anomulj''  in  nature.  It 
would  be  yet  more  strange  in  the  spiritual  world,  if 
Christ,  whose  love  to  man,  unsealed  in  apostolic 
days  the  flowing  stream  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  had 
in  later  times  suffered  it  to  perish  from  the  earth. 
He  promised  that  His  presence  with  those  whoni  He 
sent  on  this  special  work,  should  continue  "  to  the 
end  of  the  world."  Matt,  xxviii  ;■  20.  The  work 
of  the  ministry  was  to  be  perpetuated  till  "  all 
nations  "  had  heard  the  Gospel.  Matt,  xxiv  :  14  ; 
Markxiii:  10;  Rom.  i:  6.  The  Reformed  Episco- 
palian firmly  believes  that  Christ  has  kept  that 
pledge  of  His  own  word.  He  reads  history,  and 
sees  "  a  darkness  that  may  be  felt "  fall  upon  the 
world.  Ignorance,  superstition,  false  religion,  and 
wide  spread  corruption  perverted  for  a  thousand 
years  the  "simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.''  But 
through  it  all,  he  sees  that  the  true  succession  of 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  never  failed.  In  monastery 
cells,  in  lonely  Alpine  valleys,  in  the  courts  of 
kings,  and  in  the  humble  homes  of  the  poor,  Christ's 
Spirit  prepared  His  ministers,  whose  light  in  dark- 
est ages  shone  out  like  the  stars.  Thus,  in  full 
accord  with  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 


71 

land,  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  holds  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  alone  can  make  a  minister  of  Christ. 
The  Holy  Ghost  separates  some  men  for  this  sacred 
office  by  an  inward  impulse  through  the  teaching- 
of  the  Bible,  compelling  them  to  cry  out  with  the 
apostles,  "  Wo  is  me,  if  I  preach  not  the  Gospel."' 
No  other  power,  no  other  preparation,  can  create 
"  an  able  minister  of  the  New  Testament."  2 
Cor.  iii ;  6.  The  Reformed  Episcopalian  stands 
by  the  strong  statement  which  the  late  Bishop 
William  Bacon  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  made  in 
a  published  sermon,  before  his  elevation  to  the  epis- 
copate of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  "  Edu- 
cation will  supply  the  mind  with  knowledge ;  art 
will  adorn  it  with  its  graces  and  beauty  ;  oratory 
will  make  the  tongue  eloquent;  personal  accom- 
plishments will  make  the  man  admired  ;  the  hands, 
of  a  bishop  may  give  him  outward  authority  to 
minister  the  word  and  sacraments.  But  none  of 
these,  nor  all  combined,  will  make  him  a  minister 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (Sermon  of  Bishop  Stevens,  quoted 
by  Rev.  M.  B.  Smith,  in  his  "  Open  Letter,"  June 
6th,  18t4.) 

No  wonder,  surely,  that  with  such  authority  lying- 
behind  the  ministr}-,  and  giving  it  all  its  power, 
the  Reformed  Episcopalian  holds  in  honor  every 
true  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  For  us  to  despise 
or  to  neglect  our  ministers,  to  fail  to  hold  up  their 


72 

hands  in  prayer,  encouragement,  and  material  sup- 
port, would  be  a  far  greater  sin  than  it  would  be  in 
s.  Church  which  holds  that  a  mere  outward  ordi- 
nance can  make  a  man  a  minister  of  Christ. 

But  it  will  be  asked, "  Does  not  the  Reformed 
Episcopalian  demand  that  his  minister  shall  be  set 
apart  to  his  sacred  office  by  a  solemn  ordination  ?" 
I  answer  that  no  Church  on  earth  is  more  tenacious 
of  such  an  orderly  recognition  of  the  Spirit's  call 
to  Christ's  work. 

The  foreign -born  American  may  have  been  full 
of  the  spirit  of  his  adopted  country  before  he  was 
recognized  by  that  country  as  a  citizen.  But  the 
nation  demands  that  be  shall  be  naturalized  in 
token  of  such  recognition.  The  President  of  the 
.  United  States  was  such  in  reality  before  he  took 
the  oath  of  inauguration.  But  good  government 
requires  that  he  be  formally  inducted  into  his  high 
responsibility. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  holds  earnestly  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church,  when  satisfied  by  trial 
and  examination,  that  God  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
moved  a  man  to  seek  the  ministry,  to  acknowledge 
that  work  of  the  Spirit  by  formal  ordination. 

But  who  shall  ordain  ?  If  the  New  Testament 
had  clearly  settled  that  question,  no  choice  could 
be  allowed.  If  by  that  supreme  authority,  it  be 
settled  that  bishops  alone  have  such  a  duty 
entrusted  to  them,  then  we  have  no  right  to  depart 


73 

from  such  a  Scripture  model.    If,  on  the  other  hand^ 
there  be  clear  Scripture  proof  that  only  presb^^ters 
can  exercise  the  prerogative  of  ordaining  others, 
we  sin  when  we  commit  such  a  duty  to  some  higher 
officer  of  the  Church.     But  if,  with  all  the  concen- 
trated study  of  eighteen  hundred  years,  no  man,, 
however  learned,  has  been  able  to  put  his  finger 
upon  one   passage  of  the   New  Testament,  which 
fixes  beyond  all    doubt   just   where  the  power  to 
ordain  resides  in  the  Church,  then  it  is  perfectly 
evident  that  each  Christian   Church   must  decide 
that    question    for    itself.     In    the   light   of    the 
early    history    of    the    Church     of     Christ,     the 
Reformed   Episcopalian,  with  all    other  Episcopa- 
lians, is  led  to  require  a  bishop  to  take  part  in  every 
ordination.     Bat  CLiurch  history  is  one  thing;    the 
word  of  the  living  God  is  another.    And,  therefore, 
our   Church    recognizes   the    full    validity    of   the 
ordination  conferred  by  its   sister  Churches.      We 
fully  believe  that  Christian   history  justifies  us  in 
perpetuating  episcopal  ordination.     We  believe  that" 
in  this  way  ours  is  what  our  Twenty-Fourth  Article 
of  Religion  calls  it — a  "historic   ministry."     We 
honor  it  as  continuing  what  has  been  handed  down 
to   us  from   the    early   ages  of  the  Church.     We 
honor  it  as  a  precious  heritage  from  our  fathers  of 
the  English  Reformation.     But  until  we  can  find  in 
God's  written  word,  a  clear  statement  that  ordina- 
tion  by  bishops    alone,  is   honored    by  the   Holy 


74 


Ohost,  we  dare  not  brand  with  condemnation   the 
orders  of  other  Churches  whose  ministry  God  has 
blessed. 
II.  The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  stands 

AS  A  WITNESS  TO  BEAR  TESTIMONY  AGAINST  TWO  DAN- 
GEROUS ERRORS  CONCERNING  THE  MINISTRY. 

The  other  day  there  came  to  you,  flashed  through 
the  depths  of  ocean,  a  cable  dispatch.  It  con- 
sisted of  one  solitary  word.  Received  by  any 
.  other  than  yourself,  it  would  have  had  no  deeper 
meaning  than  ordinarily  attaches  to  that  single 
name.  But  to  you  it  was  a  cipher,  and  in  its 
hidden  significance  it  held  concealed  a  message  that 
it  would  take  whole  sentences  to  express. 

The  monosyllabic  word,  "  priest,"  seems  on  its 
surface,  as  innocent  of  all  hidden  meaning  as  any 
in  our  English  tongue.  For  it  is  simply  a  contrac- 
tion of  the  term  "  presbyter,"  the  Greek  form  of 
*'  elder."  It  originally  means,  therefore,  only  an 
older  man,  such  as  might  naturally  be  entitled  by 
experience  to  be  a  teacher  of  his  juniors. 

So  far  as  my  knowledge  of  the  various  forms  of 
Church  government  goes,  I  am  not  aware  that  any 
Church  exists,  in  which  there  is  not  an  oflSce  of 
"  the  elder,"  or  "  presbyter."  And  if  we  shorten 
the  word  into  "  priest,"  what  danger  is  in  the  act  ? 
Simply  this  :  that  our  translators  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament selected  the  word  "  priest,"  as  the  name  by 
which  to  render  into  English  speech,  a  totally  differ- 


75 

ent  Greek  word  which  invariably  means  a  sacrificer — 
or  one  who  offers  an  expiation  for  sin.  It  is  never 
used  in  Scripture  in  an}'  other  sense.  The  sons  of 
Aaron,  like  their  father,  were  priests,  because  it 
was  their  distiactive  work  to  offer  on  God's  altar, 
bloody  sacrifices,  which  pre-figured  and  typified  the 
bloody  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  cross.  They 
stood  as  mediators  between  God  and  man.  They 
offered  sacrifice  in  atonement  for  a  guilty  people, 
who  otherwise  might  not  dare  to  approach  God, 
They  also  presented  the  offerings  of  the  people, 
which  could  only  be  accepted  as  they  were  given  to 
God  through  these  officiating  priests.  In  one  word, 
the  Aaronic  priesthood  "  stood  between  the  living 
and  the  dead,"  mediating  for  guilty  men  before  a 
holy  God. 

But  when  Christ  cried  from  the  altar  of  Calvary's 
cross,  '*  It  is  finished,"  the  Old  Testament  priest- 
hood died  as  stars  die  in  the  heavens,  when  the  sua 
arises  in  his  strength.     The  typical   priest  was  no 
more,  because  the  real  Priest  had  offered  His  "one, 
full,  perfect,  and   sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation  and 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."     The 
whole   Epistle    to   the    Hebrews   is   an    argument 
expressly  written  to  prove  that  the  priesthood  under 
the  old  dispensation   had  been  done  away  by  the 
sole    expiation   of   the    Lamb   of    God.     "  There 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,"    But  if  no  sac- 
rifice, then  no  altar  and  no  priest.     *'  There  is  one 


76 

Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus." 

The  New  Testament  indeed  calls  all  true  believ- 
ers "  a  royal  priesthood,"  and  "  an  holy  priesthood.'' 
But  why  ?  Because  they  are  members  of  Christ 
Himself,  "bone  of  His  bone,  flesh  of  His  flesh." 
As  being  "  in  Christ  "  we  can  "  enter  into  the  holi- 
est by  the  blood  of  Jesus."  But,  O,  do  not  fail  to 
remember  it !  Not  one  solitary  passage  of  the  New 
Testament  ever  styles  a  minister  a  "  priest "  on 
account  of  his  ministerial  office.  For  a  minister  to 
arrogate  that  title  to  himself,  is  to  revolt  against 
the  plainest  teaching  in  the  word  of  God. 

It  maybe  added  that  the  earliest  of  the  unin- 
spired writers  known  as  "  the  fathers,"  betray  in 
their  writings  no  trace  of  this  perilous  doctrine. 
(See  Lightfoot  on  The  Christian  Ministry,  pp.  247- 
253.)  Not  until  the  third  century  did  early  Chris- 
tianity become  corrupted  by  the  notion  that  a  min- 
ister is  a  priest. 

But  the  dark  ages  came.  The  Roman  Church 
rivetted  its  fetters  on  a  superstitious  people. 
What  bond  could  hold  the  conscience  in  such 
slavery  as  this— to  make  the  lay  member  of  the 
Church  look  on  his  minister  as  a  "priest,"  who 
alone  could  ofler  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  or  present  an 
oblation  to  God  upon  His  altar.  The  Council  of 
Trent  put  that  dogma  into  its  decrees,  and  chained 
the  Church   to   the  conquering  car  of  a  priestly 


77 

caste,  i^  gainst  that  doctrine  the  Reformation  was 
the  protest  of  living  Christianity.  But  in  the 
Church  of  England,  "  the  eldest  daughter  of  the 
Ke formation/'  this  priestly  idea  has  been  revived. 
I  have  elsewhere  alluded  to  the  change  which  has 
passed  over  our  mother  Church  in  the  name  by 
which  its  ministers  are  called.  Some  of  us  "  old- 
fashioned  Episcopalians  "  recall  a  time  when  the 
word  "  priest  "  was  rarely  used  in  reference  to  a 
minister  of  Jesus.  To-day,  every  rector  of  a  parish 
is  spoken  of  as  "  the  priest  in  charge."  But  what 
does  this  change  mean  ?  Let  the  answer  come  from 
the  lips  and  pens  of  those  who  thus  use  the  word. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Mackonochie,  of  St.  Alban's,  in 
London,  says,  ''  The  priest  gives  to  every  commu- 
nicant the  heavenly  food  of  the  Divine  sacrifice." 
(Principles  at  Stake,  p.  141.)  Dr.  Pusey,  Arch- 
deacon Denison,  and  twenty  one  clergymen  of  the 
Church  of  England,  addressing  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  say,  "  The  same  body  once  sacrificed 
for  us,  and  that  same  blood  once  for  all  shed  for  us^ 
sacramentally  present,  are  pleaded  by  the  priest.''* 
{Ibid,  p.  141.)  The.  Rev.  Mr.  Bennett,  on  his  exam- 
ination, was  asked : 

"  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  sacrificing  priest  V* 

"Yes." 

"  In  fact,  a  sacerdos,  a  sacrificing  priest  ?" 

"Distinctly  so." 


78 

"  Then  you  think  you  offer  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice?" 

"  Yes  ;  I  think  I  do  offer  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
Jicer     {Ibid,  p.  142.) 

We  cross  the  sea.  We  enter  Old  Trinity  Church, 
in  New  York  City.  Its  rector  wields  the  vast  influ- 
-ence  of  the  wealthiest  religious  corporation  in  our 
country.  His  whole  Church  endorses  his  sound- 
ness by  his  election  to  preside  over  its  last  General 
Convention  in  this  city.  Let  us  hear  him  teach  the 
children  from  the  "  Trinity  Church  Catechism  :" 

*'  When  we  celebrate  the  holy"  eucharist  on  earth, 
with  what  do  we  join  ourselves  ?" 

*' With  the  offering  of  Christ  in  heaven." 

"  How  so  ?" 

"  Christ  in  heaven,  is  doing  in  glory,  what  the 
priest  on  earth  is  doing  in  a  holy  mystery.'*  (Trin. 
Ch.  Cat.,  p.  50.) 

Such  is  the  teaching  which  in  our  mother  Church 
lies  hidden  in  this  seemingly  harmless  word, 
"  priest.'*  Against  it,  our  beloved  Reformed  Epis- 
copal Church  is  a  perpetual  witness.  She  has  no 
sacrificing  priest  but  Jesus.  She  dares  not  allow 
her  prayer  book  to  apply  to  a  preacher  of  the  word, 
and  pastor  of  the  flock,  a  name  which  would  rob 
Jesus  of  His  glory  in  offering  His  sole  sacrifice. 

Closely  connected  with  this  error  is  that  which 
teaches  that  our  Lord  not  only  appointed  a  minis- 
try, but  also  its  precise  form  and  order.     We  are 


79 

told  that  as  an  architect  furnishes  a  builder  with  a 
detailed  pattern  containing  minute  specifications  of 
the  building  to  be  constructed,  so  did  our  Lord 
give  to  the  apostles  the  specifications  after  which 
the  Church  was  to  be  moulded  for  all  coming  time. 
"  Wheatley  on  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  a 
standard  work  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  a  text-book  in  its  theological  seminaries,  dis- 
tinctly asserts,  "  What  Aaron,  and  his  sons,  and 
the  Levites,  were  in  the  temple,  such  are  the  bish- 
ops, presbyters,  and  deacons  in  the  Christian 
Church."  (Wheatley,  p.  97.)  "These  were  ap- 
pointed by  God,  as  those  were,  and  therefore  it  can 
be  no  less  sacrilege  to  usurp  their  oflSce."  (Ibid.) 
Again,  "  None  but  those  who  are  ordained  by  such 
fts  we  now  call  bishops,  can  have  any  authority  to 
minister  in  the  Christian  Church.      (Ibid.) 

Dr.  Dix's  Trinity  Church  Catechism  puts  this 
theory  in  even  stronger  terms.  It  states  that  dur- 
ing  the  "  forty  days  "  between  the  resurrection  and 
the  ascension,  Christ  gave  to  the  apostles,  as  the 
first  bishops  of  the  Church,  ''a  definite  constitu- 
tion, government  and  officers."  It  declares  that 
Christ  has  never  permitted  but  "  one  kind  of  gov- 
ernment for  His  Church,"  and  that,  ''episcopal 
government. ' '  To  belong  to  a  religious  body  not 
having  this  episcopal  goverment,  ''is  disobeying 
Christ."  No  man  can  be  "  a  lawful  minister  "  who 
has  not  been  "  ordained  by  a  bishop."    The  "  Prot- 


80 

estant  sects  "  are  not  Churches  at  all,  but  have 
"  cut  themselves  off  from  the  Catholic  Church,  by 
abandoning  the  Catholic  ministry."  (Pp.  76-19, 
87  and  88.)  Such  is  to-day  tlie  generally  accepted 
view  held  concerning  the  ministry  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  In  the  past,  the  low  church 
party  resisted  it  bravely.  But  the  Mcllvaines  and 
Meades,  the  Tjngs  and  Anthons,  have  passed  away. 
The  feeble  relic  of  the  once  powerful  evangelical 
element  may  here  and  there  faintly  remonstrate  ; 
but  it  is  like  the  pressure  of  a  child's  finger  against 
the  onward  march  of  a  glacier. 

Nothing  but  a  separate  organization,  having  all 
the  episcopal  characteristics  that  the  old  Church 
could  claim,  yet  standing  on  the  strong  foundation 
of  the  Bible,  could  successfully  bear  witness  against 
such  an  error. 

When  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  was 
founded,  its  Twenty-Fourth  Article,  which  you  will 
find  in  your  prayer  book,  and  which  I  ask  you  care- 
fully to  read,  declared  such  a  view  of  the  ministry 
''  unscriptural  and  productive  of  great  mischief." 
It  graved  deep  on  its  constitution,  the  ecclesiastical 
equality  of  presbyters,  "  whether  episcopally  or 
otherwise  ordained." 

Its  canons  not  only  allow  interchange  of  pul- 
pits with  other  evangelical  ministers,  but  provide 
for  their  reception  into  its  ministry  without  re- 
ordination. 


81 

Are  we  justified  in  such  a  protest  as  this  Church 
makes  against  the  two  errors — that  Christian  min- 
isters are  sacrificing  "  priests,"  and  that  the  tliree- 
fold  ministry  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  is 
clearly  necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church  ? 

The  consequences  of  those  errors  justified  us. 
For  they  excluded  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  mil- 
lions of  the  noblest  witnesses  for  Jesus  that  ever 
lived  in  holiness,  and  died  in  triumphant  faith. 
They  made  their  ordination  to  be  an  unmeaning 
farce,  their  sacraments  to  be  utterly  invalid,  and 
their  whole  work,  by  which,  to  a  very  large  degree, 
our  own  land  has  been  evangelized,  to  be  a  rebellion 
against  God.  Out  of  the  priestly  and  exclusive 
theory  of  the  ministry  sprang  also  the  notion  of 
auricular  confession  and  absolution  by  a  priest. 
For  when  a  bishop  laid  his  hands  upon  a  candidate 
for  the  sacred  office,  the  prayer  book  authorized 
him  to  say,  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office 
and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now 
committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our 
hands.  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven ;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are 
retained."  The  abomination  of  auricular  confes- 
sion in  a  Protestant  Church,  is  boldly  commanded 
in  the  catechism  already  quoted.  (Pp.  66,  33- 
35.)  The  question  is  asked,  '*  By  whom  is  God 
pleased  to  forgive  sins  in  the  Church  ?"  And  the 
answer   runs,  "  By   the   priests  of  t'.e    Church.'* 


82 

Such  is  the  logical  result  of  such  a  flew  of  the 
ministry. 

Our  protest  is  justified  by  the  English  reformers, 
No  fact  of  English  history  is  more  undeniable  than 
that  the  martyred  founders  of  the  English  Church 
recognized  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  Scotland,  Germany,  Holland  and 
Switzerland. 

Archbishop  Cranmer  was  aided  by  Knox, 
Melancthon,  BuUinger,  Calvin,  Bucer,  and  Martyr 
— all  ministers  of  non-Episcopal  churches,  in 
the  preparation  of  the  prayer  book.  {Vide  Dr. 
C.  M.  Butler's  "  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,'^ 
p.  116.)  Not  only  so,  but  for  a  hundred  yearSy 
under  the  bishops  of  the  Reformation  period^ 
Englishmen  who  had  received  only  Presbyterian 
ordination,^held  parishes,  and  ministered  without 
question  in  tiie  English  Church.  {Ihid^  p.  123^ 
Keble's  Preface  to  Hooker,  p.  38  ;  Blakeney  on  the 
Prayer  Book,  chap,  vii ;  Bishop  Short's  History  of 
Church  of  England,  sections  314  and  324  ;  Goode 
on  Orders,  pp.  45-4T  ;  Bishop  White's  "  The  Case 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  America  Considered,'^ 
p.  21.)  The  writings  of  the  men  who  died  at  the 
stake  under  the  Marian  persecution,  are  full  of  the 
clearest  acknowledgement  that  episcopal  ordina- 
tion is  not  necessary  to  a  valid  ministry.  (Blake- 
ney, p.  630-632.) 

But,  above  all,  our  protest  is  justified  by  Scrip- 

*  Vide  Appendix,  C. 


83 


ture.  Even  the  ordination  services  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  make  no  claim  that  the 
Bible  alone  proves  any  fixed  and  definite  constitu- 
tion of  the  ministry.  They  only  assert  that  Scrip- 
ture and  the  "  ancient  authors  "  show  that  the  three 
orders  existed  from  the  daj^s  of  the  apostles.  No 
microscopic  search  reveals  authority  for  the  state- 
ment quoted  from  the  Trinity  Church  Catechism, 
that  Christ,  in  the  forty  days  between  His  resurrec- 
tion and  His  ascension,  gave  to  His  Church  a 
*'  fixed  constitution  "  for  all  time,  in  the  threefold 
orders  of  "  bishop,  priest  and  deacon," 

And  from  one  end  of  the  New  Testament  to  the 
other,  tlie  word  *' priest"  is  never  applied  to  a 
Christian  minister.  St.  Paul  calls  himself  an  apos- 
tle, a  preacher,  a  witness  to  Christ,  but  never  a 
priest.  St.  John  styles  himself  an  "elder,"  2  John 
1,  but  nowhere  a  priest.  St.  Peter  writes,  "  The 
elders  (or  presbyters)  which  are  among  you,  I 
exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder."  But  St.  Peter 
would  as  soon  have  denied  his  Lord  again,  as  to 
have  written,  "  Who  am  also  a  priest." 

Christ  came  to  be  our  eternal  Priest  and  Sacrifice 
in  one.  But  He  ''  humbled  Himself"  to  minister 
unto  men.  May  God  save  His  Church  from  a 
human  ministry  which  would  rob  the  Lord  Jesus  of 
His  supreoie  and  solitary  Priesthood. 


THE    REFORMED     EPISCOPALIAN    AND 
HISBISHOPc 


^'  This  is  a  true  saying,  If  a  man  desire  the   office 
of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a   good  thing, ^^ 
1  Tim.  iii :  1. 


At  the  presenji  day,  according  to  the  latest 
statistics,  there  are  about  four  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  millions  of  nominal  Christians  in  the  world. 
Out  of  these,  in  rough  numbers,  something  like 
three  hundred  and  twenty  millions  are  Episcopa- 
lians.    (McClintock  &  Strong's  Cyc.) 

Let  us  freely  admit  that  in  the  sphere  of  relig- 
ion, majorities  are  never  a  test  of  truth.  No  spirit- 
ually minded  Christian  will  claim  that  the  value  of 
any  religious  principle  depends  on  the  approval  or 
disapproval  of  the  larger  number  of  mankind. 

But,  at  the  same  time,  we  may  not  forget  that  so 
remarkable  a  phenomenon  demands  some  adequate 
■explanation. 

If  three  out  of  every  four  Americans  held  a  cer- 
tain view  of  the  question  of  the  protective  tariff, 
•or  of  civil  service  reform,  it  would  not  of  ne(?essity 
prove  that  opinion  to  be  truth.  But  it  would 
prove  that  it  was  entitled  to  a  most  respectful  con- 
sideration. In  exactly  that  attitude  does  the  Epis- 
(84) 


85 

copal  polity  in  church  government  appeal  to  Chris- 
tian minds. 

But  what  is  Episcopacy  ?  There  are  some  names 
whose  real  meaning  you  only  discover  when  you 
deal  with  them  as  the  devotee  of  science  deals  with 
the  stones  known  as  "geodes."  They  must,  as  it 
were,  be  broken  open,  to  find  what  lies  hidden 
inside.  Such  a  word  is  the  Greek  "  episcopos,'^ 
which  in  the  English  Bible  is  translated  "  bishop." 
It  has  in  it  just  this  significance — it  means  an 
*'  overseer." 

Clearly  then,  an  Episcopal  Church  is  one  which 
believes  that  certain  ministers  hold  a  position  of 
oversight  in  church  aflTairs.  There  may  be  very 
diflferent  notions  as  to  the  authority  which  these 
overseers  possess.  There  may  be  widely  variant 
views  as  to  the  source  from  which  their  authority 
is  derived.  But  the  essential  principle  of  Episco- 
pal government,  which  lies  underneath  all  its  forms, 
consists  in  this  gift  to  certain  ministers  of  an  over- 
sight of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Bearing  this  defi- 
nition in  mind,  let  us  ask  ourselves  : 

I.  Does  the   Reformed  Episcopalian  believe 

TilAT     the      office    OF    A    BISHOP     IS    OF     DiVINE 

appointment,  and  perpetuated  by  an  unbroken 
Apostolio  Succession  ? 

A  family  portrait  gallery  often  reveals  some 
peculiar  feature  descending  from  generation  to 
generation.     Our  Church  was  born  of  the  Protes- 


8d 

tant  Episcopal  Church.  And  if  we  inherited  from 
our  mother  extravagant  views  of  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  it  would  only  be  an  illustration  of  the  laws 
of  heredity. 

For  not  more  clearly  do  high  church  writers 
asseit  that  Christ  established  the  sacraments  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  than  they  insist 
that  He  appointed  the  three-fold  order  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons.  (Marshall  on  Episcopacy ,, 
pp.  61  and  62.  Chapiu  oa  the  Primitive  Church, 
pp.  168-1 U.  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  2,  p.  10. 
Bishop  Doane's  Missionary  Bishop,  p.  22).  But 
the  Reformed  Episcopalian  protests  against  such  a 
position  as  contrary  alike  to  the  Scripture,  to  his- 
tory, and  to  all  the  analogies  of  human  life. 

A  village  springs  up  on  the  virgin  prairie  of  the 
West.  A  mere  hamlet  as  yet,  its  government  is  of 
the  simplest  character.  Two  or  three  men  are 
vested  with  all  authority  that  so  primitive  a  state  of 
things,  demands.  But  population  grows.  The 
hamlet  becomes  a  town.  The  necessities  of  the 
case  call  forth  a  demand  for  a  new  class  of  officers. 
By  and  by,  a  city,  numbering  its  tens  and  hundreds 
of  thousands,  has  swallowed  up  in  its  vast  popula- 
tion the  little  germ  out  of  which  it  sprang.  New 
emergencies  arise,  and  the  government  which  was 
adequate  for  a  country  town,  is  succeeded  by  the 
complete  municipal  machinery  of  a  great  and 
populous  city. 


87       • 

But  those  who  founded  the  place  did  not  provide 
the  offices  of  city  magistrates,  aldermen,  mayor, 
and  judges  of  various  courts,  while  the  hamlet 
consisted  of  a  half  a  dozen  houses  and  a  half  a  hun- 
dred peoj^le.  Those  offices  were  created  when  the 
need  for  them  arose.  It  is  the  natural  and  his- 
torical way. 

Exactly  parallel  to  this  is  the  account  of  the 
natural  development  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 
The  early  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles- 
reveal  to  us  no  ministers,  no  administrators,  no 
governors  of  the  new  born  Church,  except  the 
Twelve  Apostles. 

But  as  the  Gospel  spreads,  and  multitudes  are 
added,  the  emergency  calls  for  anew  set  of  officers^ 
and  the  deacons  for  the  first  time  appear.  The 
lowest  office  in  the  ministry  is  the  earliest  to  be 
created.  But  it  arose  only  when  needed,  and  grew 
out  of  an  unforeseeh  emergency.  (Lightfoot  on 
Christian  Ministry,  p.  185-189.) 

But  all  this  time  the  entire  Christian  Church  had 
been  confined  to  a  single  city.  Jerusalem  alone  had 
contained  the  whole  of  Christ's  "  little  flock."" 
Now  persecution  drives  them  out.  Scattered 
throughout  Palestine,  they  carry  the  great  tidings. 
with  them.  New  churches  spring  up  far  distant 
from  the  apostolic  centre.  The  Twelve  can  not 
be  pastors  in  a  hundred  different  towns.  And  so 
another  new  emergency   calls  forth  the  appoint- 


88 

ment  of  '*  elders  "  or  "  presbyters."  It  is  not  till 
the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Acts,  and  probably  ten 
years  after  the  appointment  of  the  seven  deacons, 
that  elders  or  presbyters  are  mentioned.  They 
-came  like  the  deacons,  to  supply  a  felt  want.  They 
ivere  appointed  only  when  such  a  want  arose.  But 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  you  look  in  vain  for  any  record  of  the 
'Creation  of  the  Episcopate. 

The  name  "  bishop  "  is  not  in  the  book  of  the 
Acts,  except  as  St.  Paul  calls  the  presbyters  of 
Ephesus  ''  overseers,"  where  the  Greek  word  is 
equivalent  to  *' bishops. "  Wherever  the  name  is 
used  througiiout  the  epistles,  it  refers  to  presby- 
ters. Every  advocate  even  of  the  highest  claims 
for  divine  authority  for  the  office  of  the  bishop, 
frankly  confesses  that  "  bishops  "  and  "  presby- 
ters "  are  used  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament 
to  signify  the  same  office.  '  Bishop  Henry  U. 
Onderdonk,  in  his  tract  on  "  Episcopacy  Tested 
by  Scripture,"  distinctly  says,  "  The  name  '  bishop' 
which  now  designates  the  highest  grade  in  the  min- 
istry, is  not  appropriated  to  that  office  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. The  name  is  given  to  the  middle  office,  or 
presbyters,  and  all  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment concerning  *  bishops,*  is  to  be  regarded  as 
pertaining  tothit  middle  grade.  It  was  after  the 
apostolic  age  that  the  name  *  bishop  '  was  taken 
from  the  second  order,  and   appropriated   to  the 


89 

first  "  (p.  12).  With  Bishop  Onderdonk  agree  all 
the  writers  of  distinction  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
as  well  as  every  other  church,  from  Hooker  (Eccles. 
Polity  Book  YIII,  Y.  1)  down.  Surely  nothings 
then  can  be  clearer  than  this  fact,  that  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  in  the  view  of  the  Kew  Testament 
are  one.  If  when  no  apostles  remained  alive  to 
exercise  oversight  in  the  Church,  some  presbyters 
were  chosen  to  hold  a  supervisory  position,  and  to 
them  the  name  of  "  bishop  "  was  given  to  distin- 
guish them  from  their  fellows,  it  was  to  meet  a  felt 
need  in  tlie  Church  precisely  as  with  the  deacons 
and  presbyters.  But  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  the  fact  that  no  Divine  command  exists  for 
the  appointment  of  such  an  order  in  the  ministry. 

Even  if  we  admit  the  claim  that  Timothy  was 
made  a  bishop  at  Ephesus,  and  Titus  at  Crete,  by 
the  authority  of  the  apostle  Paul,  it  would  not  fol- 
low that  it  bound  the  Church  everywhere,  and  in 
all  ages  to  maintain  such  an  office  as  a  permanent 
feature  of  the  ministry.  For  the  apostles  sanc- 
tioned the  community  of  goods  among  Christians  ; 
yet  no  believer  in  modern  times  regards  that  prin- 
ciple as  obligatory  on  the  Church  or  its  members, 
Acts  ii ;  42-45. 

Apostles  sanctioned  anointing  the  sick  with  oil, 
Jas.  v:  14.  But  no  man  regards  it  as  a  Divine 
command  for  all  lands  and  ages. 

St.   Paul  recognizes  an  order  of  "deaconesses," 


90 

and  commends  a  Christian  woman  to  the  Church 
at  Rome,  expressly  calling  her  by  that  name,  Rom. 
xvi  :  1.  Yet  the  order  of  deaconesses  has  almost 
died  out  from  the  Church,  and  no  Christian  imag- 
ines that  a  Divine  obligation  requires  the  Church 
to  restore  it.  Episcopacy  may  be  a  form  of  church 
polity  equally  suited  to  all  times  and  regions.  We 
Reformed  Episcopalians  would  be  last  to  deny  it. 
But  that  because  after  the  apostles  died,  Episco- 
pacy is  found  prevailing  throughout  universal 
Christendom,  it  is  therefore  a  polity  which  God 
requires  as  essential  to  the  existence  of  His 
.Church,  we  abhorrently  deny. 

But  it  will  be  asked,  does  not  the  Church  of 
England,  and  through  her,  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  United  States,  claim  an  "  Apos- 
tolical Succession "  of  bishops,  so  that  in  an 
unbroken  chain  from  the  apostles  down  to  the 
latest  prelate  consecrated,  each  one  can  trace  his 
ecclesiastical  pedigree?  Unquestionably  such  a 
claim  is  made,  and  on  the  basis  of  it,  we  are  told 
that  outside  of  this  genealogical  line  there  can  be 
no  valid  transmission  of  ecclesiastical  authority. 

How  monstrous  such  a  doctrine  is,  can  be  more 
fully  realized  when  we  remember  that  it  makes 
invalid  and  a  mockery  all  the  work  which  since  the 
Reformation,  God  has  wrought  by  the  non-Epis- 
copal Churches.  On  this  theory  they  are  no 
churches.     Says    Dr.   Chapin   (Primitive  Church, 


91 

p.  93),  writing  in  regard  to  this  Apostolical  Suc- 
cession, "  The  existence  of  the  Church  is  insep- 
arable from  it."  At  the  same  time  that  this  theory 
remands  all  non-Episcopal  Churches  to  the  category 
of  unauthorized  *'  sects,''  it  makes  the  corrupt  and 
idolatrous  Roman  Church  to  be  a  true  Church  of 
Christ,  because  the  chain  of  "  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion "  has  been  preserved  in  the  consecration  of  its 
bishops 

Yet  no  line  or  word  of  the  Scripture  can  be 
adduced  to  prove  that  either  Christ  or  His  apos- 
tles commanded  any  such  galvanic  chain  to  be  con- 
structed, through  which  the  unseen  current  of  church 
life  should  flow.  There  is  no  record  in  the  Acts  or 
the  Epistles  of  a  solitary  consecration  of  a  bishop. 
The  chain  drops  powerless  because  its  very  first 
link  is  wanting.  However  far  down  the  centuries 
the  so-called  succession  may  have  been  extended, 
there  is  no  proof  that  it  ever  had  a  beginning. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  early  fathers  of  the 
Church  and  writers  of  its  history,  give  us  every 
link  of  this  chain.  In  Chapin's  ''  Primitive 
Church,"  the  list  is  seen,  page  after  page,  from  St. 
Peter  and  St.  James,  down  to  the  last  chosen  bishop 
of  the  Anglican  Church  in  the  United  States.  But 
these  lists  are  based  upon  statements  derived  from 
fragmentary  writings  of  men,  most  of  whom  lived 
in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.     Chapin  himself  is  forced  to  confess  that  "  it 


92 


was  not  customary  in  tho  Primitive  Church  to 
record  the  names  of  the  consecrators  of  the  bishops  " 
(p.  276).  How  utterly  untrustworthy  such  lists  are, 
is  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  different  catalogues  con- 
tradict each  other. 

One  list  makes  Clement  the  first  bishop  of  Rome. 
Anotlier  as  positively  confers  that  dignity  upon 
Linus.  Still  a  third  leaves  Clement  out,  and 
remands  Linus  to  the  second  place  in  the  succes- 
sion. (See  Mossman's  History  of  the  Early 
Church,  p.  1-5.  McClintock  &  Strong's  Cyclop, 
Art.  "  Pope.")  No  wonder  that  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet  writes  (Irenicum,  Part  II,  Chap.  6)  "  The 
succession  of  Rome  is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber  " 
And  yet  we  are  gravely  told  that  the  "  existence  " 
of  God's  Church  on  earth  "  depends  "  upon  this 
contradictory  testimony. 

As  we  follow  this  frail  thread  down  the  ages,  it 
becomes  still  more  confused  and  tangled.  There 
■were  long  dark  ages  in  which  all  history  becomes  a 
hopeless  labyrinth.  Yet  the  believer  in  Apostolic 
Succession  must  hold  that  all  Church  existence 
depends  on  a  certainty  that  through  that  period  of 
ignorance  and  corruption,  when  bishops  were 
feudal  chiefs  and  warriors  armed  cap  a-pie  for  bat- 
tle, and  when  their  lives  were  the  shame  of  man- 
kind, each  one  was  duly  consecrated,  and  the  long 
chain  never  broken. 

Added  to  this,  we  have  the  positive  testimony  of 


93 

Jerome  in  the  fourth  century,  and  of  a  host  of 
later  writers,  that  the  great  metropolitan  Church 
of  Alexandria  (whose  line  of  bishops  figures  largely 
in  these  lists)  during  two  hundred  years  imme- 
diately succeeding  the  apostles,  always  chose  its 
own  bishop  from  among  the  presbyters,  who  laid 
their  hands  upon  him  in  consecration.  (Galla- 
gher's "  Prim.  Eirenicon  ") 

The  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  who 
sealed  with  their  blood  their  testimony  to  the 
truth,  unanimously  reject  such  a  theory  of  Apos- 
tolical Succession.  Cranmer  argued  that  a  presby- 
ter and  a  bishop  were  of  the  same  order,  and  that 
no  consecration  to  the  Episcopate  was  necessary. 
Bishop  Jewel  distinctly  states  that  the  Scripture 
makes  a  bishop  and  presbj^ter  the  same,  and  "  only 
church  custom  "  elevates  the  former  above  the 
latter.  Even  Archbishop  Whitgift,  opposing  Puri- 
tan attacks  upon  Episcopal  order,  owns  that  *'  the 
Church  of  Christ  may  exist  icilh  or  without  this  or 
that  form  of  government.''^  (See  Dr.  C.  M.  But- 
ler's Old   Truths  and  New  Errors,  pp   113-118.) 

What  the  reformers  and  martyrs  of  the  English 
Church  thus  forcibly  and  boldly  taught,  was  also 
the  earnest  conviction  of  the  first  bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
The  venerable  William  White,  Bishop  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, has  been  well  styled  "  the  father  of  Episco- 
pacy in   America."     When   the   English   bishops, 


94 

after  the  Revolutionary  War,  hesitated  to  conse- 
crate a  bishop  for  the  revolted  colonies,  Dr.  White 
recommended  that  bishops  should  be  appointed 
:and  consecrated  by  presbyters,  ("  Case  of  the 
JEpiscopal  Churches  in  America  Considered.";  So 
stands  the  case.  Against  this  theory  of  Apostolic 
Succession,  the  protest  rings  out  from  good  men  of 
every  age,  from  all  Christian  history,  and  from  the 
Word  of  God. 

II.  Why  does    the   Reformed    Episcopalian 

THEN,  RETAIN  THE  OFFICE  OF   A  BISHOP  ? 

What  is  useless  is  a  hindrance.  No  army  on  a 
forced  march  carries  unnecessary  burdens.  There 
is  no  evil  against  which  public  opinion  cries  out 
more  vehemently  than  the  multiplication  of  need- 
less offices.  Why  then  have  we  bishops?  Our 
/answer  is  that  we  sincerely  believed  in  the  practi- 
cal value  of  having  in  the  Church  such  a  presiding 
'.officer. 

Not  long  ago  I  stood  at  the  entrance  of  a  mili- 
tary camp,  appealing  for  admittance.  But  whether 
or  not  1  had  a  right  to  enter,  was  not  determined 
by  the  whole  regiment.  Neither  did  the  entire 
staff  of  officers  bear  that  responsibility.  It  rested 
with  one  officer  to  settle  whether  the  glittering 
ibayonet  of  the  sentry  should  be  lowered,  and  I 
^admitted.  Such  a  rule  was  inconvenient  for  those 
who  sought  admission.  It  doubtless  provoked 
remonstrance.     But  its  practical  wisdom   no  rea- 


95 


sonable  man  could  doubt.  For  a  divided  responsi- 
bility for  any  important  duty,  is  always  perilous  to 
safety.  To  hold  one  individual  responsible,  is  the 
fruit  of  ripe  experience. 

The  Church  of  Christ  has  ever  taught  that  the 
entrance  to  its  ministry  cannot  be  too  carefully 
and  jealously  guarded. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  holds  that  in  no 
way  can  the  worthless  and  the  ignorant,  the 
unsound  in  doctrine  and  the  unholy  in  living,  be 
so  effectually  barred  from  entering  the  sacred  min- 
istry, as  by  holding  one  officer  of  the  Church 
responsible  for  ordination  to  the  work  of  Gospel 
preaching.  Responsibility  is  like  the  precious 
metals.  One  grain  of  gold  may  be  beaten  so  thin 
as  to  cover  a  surface  of  fifty  square  inches.  But 
its  thinness  destroys  its  tenacity  and  strength.  It 
is  an  awful  responsibility  to  which  a  church  holds 
one  of  its  officers,  when  it  demands  that  he  shall 
answer  for  the  entrance  gate  of  ordination.  It 
cannot  fail  to  impress  him  with  a  sense  of  his  need 
of  God's  grace  and  wisdom  sought  in  prayer. 
The  Reformed  Episcopalian  does  not  believe  that 
such  responsibility  will  waken  so  profound  a  sense 
of  watchfulness  and  prayer  when  it  is  beaten  out 
to  cover  fifty  or  a  dozen  men  with  the  duty  of 
ordaining. 

Let  us  pass  from  the  entrance  of  the  ministry 
into  the  government  of  the  Church  itself. 


96 

No  bishop  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church 
can  ever  be  "  a  lord  over  God's  heritage."  But  as 
an  adviser  and  a  friend,  he  stands  among  his  fellow- 
ministers  a  presiding  officer.  If  heart-burnings 
and  jealousies  creep  into  the  hearts  of  fallen  men, 
who,  though  ministers  of  Christ,  are  liable  to 
temptation,  it  is  his  to  "  reprove,  rebuke  and 
exhort  with  all  long-suffering  and  doctrine. " 

He  occupies  too,  the  responsible  position  of  a 
mediator  and  arbitrator,  when  differences  spring 
up  between  ministers  and  their  congregations. 
Troubles  which  might  grow  to  vast  dimensions  and 
a  shameful  publicity,  and  add  to  the  scandals  that 
block  the  progress  of  Christianity,  if  either  left  to 
themselves  or  entrusted  to  the  settlement  of  coun- 
cils or  ecclesiastical  courts,  may  be  quieted  and 
harmonized  by  the  wisdom  and  godly  counsel  of  a 
presiding  officer  of  the  whole  Church. 

Moreover,  who  can  so  stir  up  the  stronger 
parishes  "  to  support  the  weak,"  who  can  to  the 
same  decree  interest  one  church  in  another,  and 
push  on  the  missionary  effort  of  the  whole  body, 
as  an  officer  whose  sympathies,  interests,  and 
responsibilities  are  enlisted  not  in  a  single  congre- 
gation, but  in  the  Church  as  a  whole  ? 

The  force  of  this  argument  for  the  practical 
worth  of  the  Episcopate,  is  strengthened  when  we 
look  around  us  at  our  sister  churches. 

The  man  who  loses  an  arm,  is  apt  to  supply 


9T 

the  deficiency  by  an  artificial  substitute.  To  a  cer- 
tain degree  it  does  the  work  of  the  lost  limb ;  but 
it  also  proves  how  necessary  that  limb  was.  Does 
it  not  also  prove  that  a  presiding  oflScer  among  his 
fellow  presbyters,  is  a  necessity  to  the  Church, 
when  we  find  in  the  non-Episcopar  Churches,  a 
bishop — not  in  name — but  in  actual  work  and 
responsibility  ?  In  almost  every  city  of  our  coun- 
try, some  one  Presbyterian  clergyman  is  a  bishop 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  retains  that  office,  except  that  he  is  not  the 
sole  ordainer.  I  feel  sure  that  our  Congregational 
brethren  would  cheerfully  admit  that  tbeir  growth 
in  the  West  has  been  largely  due  to  a  supervision 
— an  Episcopal  oversight — of  all  the  scattered 
congregations — exercised  by  certain  secretaries  of 
Home  Mission  work,  who  are  bishops  in  every 
sense  save  the  authority  to  ordain. 

It  clearly  shows  that  such  an  office  is  a  natural 
and  necessary  one.  It  grows  out  of  the  inevitable 
demand  of  all  human  society  that  for  every  body 
there  should  be  a  head.  Are  we  Reformed  Episco- 
palians wrong,  when  we  claim  that  having  the  office, 
we  should  give  the  officer  his  ancient  name  ? 

We  have  been  charged  with  inconsistency  in  one 
prominent  fact  of  our  history.  The  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  rejects,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
theory  of  an  unbroken  succession  of  Episcopal 
consecrations   from   the    apostles    down.     "  Why 


98 

then,'^  it  has  been  asked,  "  did  ifc  come 'into  exist 
ence  only  when  a  bishop  of  the  old  line  led  the 
movement?     Why  does  it  continue,  to  consecrate 
bishops  by  bishops,  and  thus  perpetuate  a  succes- 
sion to  which  it  attaches  no  importance?" 

The  answer  is,  that  Reformed  Episcopalians  do 
attach  importance  to  their  historic  Episcopate. 
We  do  not  hold  that  it  is  necessary  to  the  exist- 
ence of  a  valid  ministry  and  a  true  church.  But 
vre  believe  that  it  links  us  with  the  glorious  Re. 
formers  of  the  English  Church.  Their  polity  is 
ours.  It  puts  us  clearly  in  that  ecclesiastical 
family  which  preserves  the  idea  of  a  president 
among  presbyters,  which  history  testifies  was  the 
practice  of  the  early  Church. 

But  that  is  not  all.  Our  argument  of  practical 
utility  again  has  its  influence.  The  work  of  thia. 
Church  must  always  be  largely  in  the  line  of  open- 
ing a  refuge  for  Episcopalians.  It  must  be  a  home 
for  men  who  love  a  liturgy  and  Episcopal  govern- 
ment, though  loving  the  Gospel  better.  And  to 
such  it  is  able  to  say,  "  Whatever  you  had  in  your 
mother  Church,  of  historic  value,  you  have  here 
also.  If  your  old  Church  claimed  to  give  you  an 
Episcopate  historic  beyond  all  question,  so  do  we.'' 
AVhen  Bishop  Cummins  entered  on  the  work  of 
this  Church,  he  wrote  to  the  Presiding  Bishop  of 
the  communion  from  which  he  withdrew,  that  he 
took  the  step  in  order  to   "  transfer   his  work  and 


99 

office  to  another  sphere."  He  entered  this  Chorcb 
bringing  his  Episcopal  office  with  him.  As  such 
he  consecrated  other  bishops. 

It  has  been  urged  that  canon  law  requires  three 
bishops  to  consecrate.  But  history  is  full  of 
instances  in  which  but  one  acted  as  the  consecrator. 
(Chapin's"  Primitive  Church,"  p.  284.)  Dr.  Pusey 
himself  writes,  "  Consecration  by  one  bishop  i* 
valid."  (Letter  to  Bishop  Gregg,  Dec.  4th,  1876.) 
Cannon  Liddon,  as  high  authority  as  the  highest 
churchman  could  desire,  has  distinctly  admitted 
over  his  own  signature,  when  his  opinion  of  the 
historic  position  of  our  Episcopate  was  sought,  "  A_ 
consecration  by  one  bishop  is  valid.  All  orders^ 
conferred  by  a  bishop  so  consecrated  are  undoubt- 
edly  valid."  (Letter  to  Bishop  Gregg,  Nov- 
ITth,  1876.) 

Dean  Stanley,  certainly  one  of  the  profonndest^ 
students  of  Ecclesiastical  History  that  the  EnglisU 
Church  has  produced,  has  also  pronounced  his  ver- 
dict as  follows :  "  Whoever  lays  hands  on  presby- 
ter or  deacon  (whether  bishops  or  presbyters)* 
takes  part  in  the  consecration  or  ordination  z 
though  a  single  bishop  is  sufficient  in  each  case." 
(Letter  to  Bishop  Gregg,  Oct.  18th,  1877  ) 

We  can  therefore  give  to  our  brethren  wha 
desire  a  pure  Gospel  in  a  historic  church,  an  invi- 
tation which  could  not  have  been  extended,  if  ours, 
were  not  a  church  in  the  line  of  the  historical  Epis* 
copate. 


100 

But  our  Church  has  a  reason  over  and  above  its 
practical  argument  for  Episcopal  polity.  Antiq- 
uity considered  by  itself,  proves  nothing  to  the 
Christian.  There  are  ancient  institutions  which 
degrade  man  and  dishonor  God.  Polygamy  and 
slavery  are  gray  with  age. 

But  when  we  cherish  something  which  itself  is 
good,  and  possesses  a  manifest  practical  value,  it 
adds  to  that  value,  to  know  that  it  has  stood  the 
test  of  ages.  There  are  certain  principles  of  right 
and  justice  which  constitute  the  bulwarks  of  society 
in  this  nineteenth  century.  But  it  certainly  adds 
to  the  estimate  in  which  we  hold  them,  when  we 
find  them  in  the  Magna  Charta,  and  know  that  they 
have  stood  between  freedom  and  despotism  since 
the  barons  at  Runnimede  wrested  them  from  the 
reluctant  hand  of  King  John. 

We  have  seen  that  Episcopacy  has  a  practical 
value  in  our  own  day.  Surely,  it  ought  to  add  to 
the  honor  in  which  we  hold  it,  if  history  shows 
that  it  has  CQme  down  to  us  from  the  apostolic 
age. 

If  too,  we  find  that  the  New  Testament  hints  at,  if 
it  does  not  clearly  prove,  the  fact  that  overseers  were 
appointed  while  tiie  apostles  lived,  to  do  precisely 
the  work  which  bishops  do  in  an  Episcopal  Church 
of  our  own  time ;  and  if  later  history  shows  that 
through  all  the  earlier  centuries  of  Christianity 
that  polity  prevailed,  we  have  a  valid  reason  for 
retaining  the  E[)i'=!eonnl  ofTice. 


101 

That  such  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  tlie  New 
Testament  appears  indisputable  to  the  Reformed 
Episcopalian.  All  Protestants  admit  that  the 
Twelve  Apostles  ordained  other  ministers,  and 
that  upon  them  there  fell  "  the  care  of  all  the 
churches." 

Now  the  simple  question  is,  did  these  Episcopal 
duties  of  ordination,  and  supervision  of  the 
churches  cease  to  be  exercised  by  presiding  pres- 
byters when  the  apostolic  band  gradually  passed 
away  from  earth  ?  Even  before  the  death  of  the 
last  apostle,  did  there  exist  no  such  presidency 
among  the  presbyters  of  the  early  Church  when 
the  work  became  too  extensive  lor  the  personal 
supervision  of  the  Twelve  ?  Let  the  reply  come 
from  St.  Paul's  own  writings.  He  says  to  Tim- 
othy :  "  The  things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me 
among  many  witnesses  the  same  commit  thou  to 
faithful  men  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
also,"  2  Tim.  ii :  2. 

And  when  we  ask  how,  and  in  what  form,  the 
authority  to  preach  was  to  be  conferred  by  Tim- 
othy, we  receive  the  answer  from  the  same  author- 
ity. He  tells  Timothy  to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on 
no  man."  He  was  to  use  the  same  watchful  care 
and  thorough  examination  of  a  candidate,  expected 
of  a  bishop  now ;  but  when  such  investigation  was 
complete,  he  was  to  admit  the  man  who  had  thus 
been  scrutinized  by  "  laying  on  of  hands,^^  1  Tim. 
V:   22. 


102 

Still  stronger  does  the  point  of  our  argument 
appear  in  the  directions  given  to  Titus,  "For 
this  cause,"  says  St.  Paul,  *'  left  I  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  thai;  are 
wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  have 
appointed  thee." 

These  two  presbyters  of  the  early  Church  mani- 
festly exercised  a  power  which  did  not  belong  to 
other  presbyters.  St.  Paul  exhorts  Timothy  to 
forbid  the  preaching  of  certain  doctrines,  1  Tim. 
i :  3,  which  can  only  be  explained  on  the  theory 
that  he  had  supervision  of  his  fellow  ministers. 
Explicit  directions  are  given  him  as  to  the  qualifica- 
tions on  which  he  should  insist  in  those  exercising 
their  ministry  under  him,  1  Tim.  iii.  He  is  to 
count  a  presbyter  who  ruled  well,  *'  worthy  of 
double  honor."  He  is  not  to  receive  an  accusa- 
tion against  a  presbyter,  except  in  the  presence  of 
two  witnesses,  1  Tim.  v;  17  and  19.  When  satis- 
fied of  sin  on  the  part  of  a  presbyter,  he  is  to 
rebuke  him  publicly,  1  Tim.  v ;  20.  Titus  is  given 
instructions  to  "  rebuke  with  all  authority."  -If 
necessary,  he  was  "  to  stop-  the  mouths  ''  of  those 
who  taught  for  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre.  He  was 
vested  with  judicial  power  to  reject  those  who 
held  and  taught  heresies  in  doctrine,  Titus  i :  11  ; 
ii :  15;  iii:  10.  It  seems  almost  impossible  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  these  two  early  ministers 
of  Christ  were  entrusted  by  apostolic  hands  with 


103 


precisely  the  duties  and  responsibilities  which  now 
pertain  to  the  office  of  a  bishop. 

Let  us  make  no  mistake.  Let  us  create  no  mis- 
understanding. The  New  Testament  does  not  say 
that  Timotliy  and  Titus  were  apostles.  It  does  not 
assert  tliat  they,  or  either  of  them,  ever  succeeded  the 
apostles  in  their  peculiar  office.  But  it  does  make  it 
reasonably  evident  that  even  in  the  apostles'  days, 
some  presbyters  were  appointed  to  oversight  of 
the  Church.  They  were  entrusted  with  special 
authority  in  the  two  departments  of  admitting 
men  to  the  ministry,  and  exercising  a  leadership 
and  presiding  influence.  How  perfectly  natural  it 
would  be  that  as  martyrdom,  or  a  more  peaceful 
death  took  the  apostles  from  their  earthly  work^ 
the  model  suggested  by  their  appointment  of  Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  and  perhaps  others,  as  presiding 
presbyters,  should  lead  the  Church  to  make  such 
an  office  a  permanent  feature  of  its  polity.  (Yide 
Lightfoot  on  the  Ministry,  p.  194-19T  )  And  what 
was  so  natural,  actually  took  place.  As  early  as 
the  period  A.  D.  107-116,  Ignatius  testifies  that 
the  Episcopal  polity  was  universal  in  the  Church. 
(Marshall  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  109-113  )  (Litton 
on  the  Church,  p.  301.) 

It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  the  long  category  of 
Christian  writers  whose  testimony  makes  it  clear 
that  from  the  time  of  Ignatius,  onward  for  1500 
years,  bishops  presided  over  all  the  ever  spreading 
activities  of  the  Christian  Church.     We  may  justly 


104 


reject  many  of  the  opinions  of  these  writers.  We 
may  treat  their  doctrinal  views  precisely  as  we  do 
those  of  any  other  uninspired  men.  The  Bible  is 
the  supreme  test  to  which  they  must  be  subjected 
•even  as  the  preaching  and  writing  of  teachers  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  But  their  religious  opinions 
are  one  thing.  Their  historic  testimony  is  another. 
They  are  competent  witnesses  as  to  what  took 
place  in  their  own  age.  And  their  evidence  is 
-absolutely  like  that  of  one  man.  Beyond  all  ques- 
tion they  prove  that  the  universal  polity  of  the 
Church  from  within  a  hundred  years  of  the  death 
of  Christ  onward,  was  an  Episcopal  polity. 

What  makes  this  the  more  remarkable,  is  the 
fact  that  while  endless  controversies  arose  regard- 
ing Christian  doctrine  and  government,  there  is 
no  record  of  any  question  concerning  the  settled 
polity  of  the  Church  being  a  government  by 
bishops.  Orthodox  and  heretics  on  that  point  were 
perfectly  agreed. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  cannot  believe  that 
within  thirty  years  of  the  death  of  the  last  apostle, 
the  universal  government  and  polity  of  the  Church 
could  have  become  Episcopal,  if  such  a  system 
had  been  repugnant  to  the  apostles'  own  teaching 
and  practice.  May  God  help  our  beloved  Church 
to  prove  by  its  history  yet  to  be,  that  Episcopacy 
and  broad  charity  may  be  yoked  together,  and  the 
love  of  Christ  made  known  by  a  church,  which 
preserves  the  office  of  a  bishop  I  Amen. 


THE     REFORMED     EPISCOPALIAN    AND 
HIS  PRAYER    BOOK. 


^^And  it  came  to  pass,  as  He  was  praying  in  a  cer- 
tain place,  when  He  ceased,  one  of  His  disciples 
said  unto  Him,  Lord,  teach  us  to  pray,  as  John 
also  taught  his  disciples, ^^  St.  Luke  xi :   1. 


Among  the  external  peculiarities  of  our  Church, 
none  attracts  more  attention  than  the  fact  that  we 
worship  with  a  liturgy,  or  precomposed  form  of 
devotion.  Precisely  as  some  singularity  of  feature 
or  expression  of  the  face,  is  more  quickly  noticed 
than  a  more  important  and  vital  singularitj''  of 
inward  character,  so  does  our  Prayer  Book  worship 
more  readily  arrest  attention  than  our  doctrinal 
principles. 

For  three  hundred  years  a  controversy  has  agi- 
tated the  Protestant  Churches,  regarding  set  forms 
of  prayer.  But  ancient  as  the  discussion  is,  it  has 
not  died  of  old  age.  It  is  a  living  question  to-day. 
Like  many  other  debated  points,  it  has  not  alwa3^s 
been  discussed  with  a  large-minded  fairness  or 
Christian  temper.  I  earnestly  trust  that  modera- 
tion and  sincerity  may  be  the  features  of  our  con- 
sideration of  it. 

L  Why    does    the    Reformed    Episcopalian 
EMPLOY  A  Prayer  Book  in  public  worship? 
(105) 


106 

In  my  boyhood,  when  commerce  was  conaucted 
hy  the  aid  of  a  currency  more  varied  than  the 
leaves  upon  the  trees,  every  counting-house  was 
provided  with  a  '*  counterfeit  detector."  It  settled 
every  question.  To  its  standard  every  suspected 
bank  note  was  referred.  We  have  a  far  more  infalli- 
ble "  detector  "  of  what  is  false  in  religion.  The  rock 
■on  which  the  Protestant  builds,  is  the  Word  of  God 
alone.  To  that  supreme  test  we  must  submit. 
Hence  if  a  liturgy  employed  in  public  worship,  is 
clearly  inconsistent  with  the  Bible,  the  sooner  we 
reject  precomposed  prayer,  the  better. 

It  must  be  a  hasty  glance  which  we  give  at  the 
past  history  of  God's  people,  but  it  certainly  will 
shed  some  light  upon  the  vexed  question  of  liturgical 
worship.  When  God  had  delivered  Israel  at  the  Red 
Sea,  the  rescued  people  engaged  in  a  solemn  act  of 
worship,  Exodus  xv.  Moses  and  the  men  of  Israel 
sang  a  chant  of  thanksgiving.  But  Miriam  and 
the  women  take  up  the  burden  of  the  same  words, 
and  sing  them  responsively.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  such  worship  could  have  been  conducted  with- 
out some  prearranged  form. 

Again,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  the  book  of  Num- 
bers, God  speaks  to  Moses  and  gives  him  this 
direction :  "  Speak  to  Aaron  and  his  sons,  saying, 
On  this  wise  shall  ye  bless  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying  unto  them,"  and  then  follows   a  long  and 


107 

elaborate  benediction,  of  which  every  word  is  pre- 
composed  and  prescribed. 

In  the  10th  chapter  of  the  same  book,  Moses  is 
described  as  using  a  set  form  of  words  whenever 
the  Ark  of  God  led  forth  the  people,  and  whenever 
it  re&ted  on  their  march. 

Five  hundred  years  later,  we  find  David  using  a 
form  of  worship  when  the  Ark,  after  long  captivi- 
ty is  brought  to  Jerusalem,  Ps.  Ixviii :   cxxxii. 

When  Solomon  offered  his  solemn  prayer  at  the 
dedication  of  the  Temple,  he  uses  the  very  lan- 
guage prepared  and  written  by  his  father  David  in 
the  preceding  generation.  (Comp.  2  Chron  vi : 
41  with  Ps.  cxxxiii.) 

But  why  go  back  to  a  period  so  remote  ?  Let 
our  text  bear  its  witness.  Twice  over  did  Jesus 
give  to  his  disciples  what  we  call  the  "  Lord's 
Pra3^er,"  It  was  in  response  to  their  appeal, 
*'  Teach  us  to  pray,  as  John  also  taught  his  disci- 
ples." 

No  one  believes  that  the  Jews  who  composed  the 
following  of  Christ,  were  strangers  to  the  act  of 
prayer.  They  clearly  meant  to  say  that  John  the 
Baptist  had  taught  his  disciples  some  form  of  sup- 
plication adapted  to  their  needs  under  his  prepara- 
tory stage  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  And  now 
Christ's  followers  ask  for  a  form  of  prayer  that 
shall  be  an  advance  upon  John's — a  distinctively 
Christian  prayer.     And  with  that  request   the    Sa- 


108 

viour  complied.  He  not  only  said,  "  After  thia 
manner  therefore  pray  ye,"  Matt,  vi :  9,  but  also 
as  St,  Luke  records,  "  When  ye  pray,  say  " — thus 
distinctly  giving  them  a  liturgical  form,  Luke  xi : 
2.  Surely  we  need  no  stronger  evidence  that  a  form 
is  not  necessarily  out  of  harmony  with  either  the 
Old  or  the  New  Testament. 

But  another  reason  impels  the  Reformed  Epis- 
copalian. A  responsive  form  of  worship  is  a  con- 
tinual protest  against  a  ministerial  and  priestly 
monopolizing  of  the  public  service  of  Ood.  It  is 
an  easy  way  to  rid  one's  self  of  all  business  cares, 
to  "  sign  a  power  of  attorney,"  by  which  a  man  di- 
vests himself  of  his  own  personal  rights,  and 
transfers  his  individuality  to  another. 

That  act,  in  the  sphere  of  religion,  constitutes 
the  Roman  Catholic  idea.  The  rights,  responsi- 
bilities and  duties  of  the  laymen  are  transferred  to 
the  priest.  All  religious  worship  centres  in  the 
celebration  of  the  mass.  It  is  not  needful  that 
any  beside  the  priest  should  be  present.  The  peo- 
ple have  in  it  no  necessary  share. 

When  the  Reformation  came,  its  leaders  were 
quick  to  see  that  one  of  the  most  effective  means 
to  secure  to  the  laity  a  recognized  place  in  the 
Church,  was  a  responsive  liturgy.  Luther  pre- 
pared forms  of  worship  for  Germany.  The  Swed- 
ish Reformers  followed  his  example.  The  Mora- 
vians possess  and  use  to-day  a  service  book,  dating 


109 


back  to  1 032  Calvin  was  among  the  earliest  to 
perceive  the  importance  of  a  book  of  common 
prayer,  and  liimself  gave  a  liturgy  to  the  churches 
of  Switzerland.  Even  the  Presbyterians  of  Scot- 
land, in  Reformation  days,  did  not  wholly  depart 
from  the  principle  of  a  pre-arranged  mode  of  pub- 
lic worship.  (McClintock  &  Strong's  Cyclop., 
Art.  "Liturgy.") 

In  England  a  Scriptural  Prayer  Book  was  felt 
to  be  the  first  essential  step  toward  giving  the  lay- 
man his  Christian  rights.  Cranmer  and  his  fellow- 
workers  called  to  their  aid  the  great  lights  of  the 
Reformation  in  other  lands,  and  with  their  help  laid 
in  the  English  Church  the  deep  foundations  of  litur- 
gical worship.  But  in  every  case  the  underlying 
principle,  and  the  impelling  motive  were  the  same. 
It  was  the  conviction  that  nothing  can  guard  the 
rights  of  the  Christian  layman  against  priestly 
encroachment,  like  a  form  of  worship  in  which  the 
people  have  their  necessary  share. 

Moreover,  a  liturgy  possesses  a  singular  teaching 
power.  One  can  always  discover  a  man's  doctrinal 
views  from  his  prayers.  Precom posed  or  extempo- 
raneous, a  prayer  is  like  the  coin  bearing  the  image 
and  superscription  of  the  mint  in  which  it  was 
stamped.  Consequently  prayer  must  be  a  powerful 
doctrinal  preacher.  The  public  worship  in  a  congre- 
gation is  continually  teaching  either  falsehood  or 
truth.     But  extempore  prayers,  of  necessity  change 


no 


with  every  alteration  in  the  belief  of  him  who  leads 
the  worship. 

The  manifest  advantage  of  a  precomposed  form 
is  that  it  steadily  and  persistently  teaches  the 
same  truth.  Out  of  an  old-fashioned  iron  studded 
door,  it  is  possible  to  draw  the  nails.  But  only  by 
reducing  the  door  itself  to  a  heap  of  chips.  So 
with  a  liturgy.  Only  by  its  destruction  can  you 
separate  from  it  the  truth  it  contains.  Were  I  to 
become  a  Unitarian,  and  deny  from  this  pulpit  the 
essential  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  liturgy  with  its 
supreme  exaltation  of  the  Saviour,  with  its  three- 
fold ascriptions  to  the  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
would  steadily  give  the  lie  to  every  sermon  I  could 
preach. 

There  can  be  no  more  striking  witness  to  this 
principle,  than  is  furnished  by  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Forty 
years  ago  the  vast  majority  of  the  laity,  a  goodly 
proportion  of  the  clergy,  and  nearly  one  half  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  were  avowedly  evangelical  low 
churchmen.  To  day  the  old  evangelical  party  is 
like  the  race  of  mound-builders  of  our  Western 
plains.  It  is  hopelessly  extinct.  Why?  Because  the 
Prayer  Book  was  a  more  powerful  teacher  than  the 
evangelical  pulpit.  Baptismal  regeneration,  priestly 
absolution,  a  sacrifice  in  the  Lord's  supper,  and  an 
exclusive  church  system,  were  interwoven  with  the 
fibre   of  the   services.     They  persistently   contra- 


Ill 


dieted  the  low  churchman  in  his  pulpit.  I  bless 
God  that  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  has  a  Prayer 
Book  which  is  a  consistent  teacher  of  evangelical 
truth.  I  may  be  false  to  the  Gospel.  So  may 
every  other  minister  of  this  Church.  But  so  long 
as  this  Prayer  Book  is  used  for  our  worship — so 
long  will  the  desk  overcome  the  pulpit  in  its  teach- 
ing power. 

Such  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  is  a  liturgical  Church.  They 
are  reasons  which  are  not  only  satisfactory  to 
us,  but  are  profoundly  influencing  other  Chris- 
tian Churches.  Within  the  past  three  years  the 
thinking  Christians  of  our  own  country  have  been 
stirred  by  an  able  discussion  on  this  subject  in  one 
of  the  great  literary  magazines.  (Yide  The  Cen- 
tury Magazine,  1885,  '86,  '8t.)  That  debate,  par- 
ticipated in  by  the  leading  minds  of  all  the 
churches,  was  initiated  by  a  distinguished  Presby- 
terian clergyman,  who  advocated  liturgical  wor- 
ship as  the  best  method  of  uniting  the  scattered 
forces  of  Protestant  Christianity.  Right  or  wrong 
in  his  conclusions,  he  certainly  has  brought  the 
fact  to  light,  that  in  the  minds  of  evangelical 
believers  there  is  a  growing  conviction  in  the 
direction  of  a  precomposed  form  of  public 
worship.  The  Reformed  Episcopalian  can  desire 
for  his  own  Church  and  liturgy  nothing  better  than 
such  an  agitation  of  Christian  thought. 


112 

II.  What  is  the  Prayer  Book  op  the  Re-' 
FORMED  Episcopal  Church  ? 

The  impression  has  been  created  that  ours  is  a 
new  liturgy,  sprung  upon  the  work!  like  a  fresh 
invention  in  meclianics.  If  such  were  the  case,  it 
would  justly  prejudice  the  Christian  mind  against 
it.  For  a  prayer  book  is  not  like  the  tree  which 
Japanese  jugglers  make  to  spring  up  and  grow  to 
full  stature  in  an  hour.  It  must  be  the  product  of 
the  ages.  There  is  a  reverence  in  the  prayerful 
disciple  of  Christ,  which  leads  him  to  feel  that  if  he 
is  to  worship  in  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer,  they 
must  be  those  in  which  the  penitence  and  praise, 
the  hope  and  faith  of  ages  past  have  found  expres- 
sion. Precisely  such  is  the  Prayer  Book  of  the 
Reformed  Episcopalian. 

It  may  surprise  some  who  hear  me  today,  to  be 
told  that  in  almost  every  instance  in  which  we 
have  departed  from  the  liturgy  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  we  have  gone  back  to  the  sec- 
ond Prayer  Book  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  the  work 
of  the  martyrs  of  the  English  Reformation.  Ours 
is  therefore  a  more  ancient  form  of  prayer  than 
that  with  which  we  formerly  worshipped.  More- 
over, those  parts  of  our  service  in  which  our 
liturgy  agrees  with  that  of  our  mother  Church, 
have  been  handed  down  from  the  earliest  ages  of 
Christianity. 

There  is  notliing  in  uninspired  language  that  stirs 


113 


my  soul  like  the  old  hymn  called  the  "  Te  Deum," 
"  We  praise  Thee,  O  God,  we  acknowledge  Thee  to 
be  the  Lord  I"  It  bears  me  back  upon  its  sublime 
praise  to  the  days  when  Christians,  driven  from  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  met  for  worship  in  rock-hewn 
catacombs.  Nor  can  I  forget,  as  an  American, 
that  this  was  the  first  Christian  song  heard  on  the 
soil  of  this  Continent,  when  Columbus  fell  upon 
his  knees,  and  the  Te  Deum  praised  God  for  a  new 
Western  world. 

But  at  the  very  latest,  the  Te  Deum  was  used  as 
early  as  the  sixth  century.  (Wheatley,  p.  150. 
Procter's  Hist,  of  P.  B.,  p.  223.)  The  Gloria  in 
Excelsis,  the  opening  words  of  which  were  sung  by 
the  angelic  choirs  when  Christ  was  born,  has  voiced 
the  praise  of  believers  for  at  least  twelve  hundred 
years.  (Palmer,  Origines  Liturg.  II,  158 ;  Proc- 
ter, p.  361  ;  Wheatley,  p.  335.)  The  Apostles' 
Creed  has  been  the  outline  of  Christian  doctrine 
accepted  and  repeated  in  worship,  from  the  fourth 
century.  (Procter,  p.  229  ;  Wheatley,  p.  155.) 
Nor  is  what  we  call  the  Nicene  Creed  of  much 
later  date.  Originating  in  the  year  325,  and  put 
in  its  present  form  half  a  century  later,  since  the 
year  381,  its  clear  and  trumpet-like  tones  have  pro- 
claimed the  Divinity  of  the  Saviour.  (Procter,  p. 
229.) 

Still  more  ancient  are  the  Yersicles,  *'  The  Lord 


114 

be  with  you;"  "And  with  thy  spirit."  (Wheat- 
ley,  p.  160  ;  Procter,  p.  240.) 

The  great  majority  of  all  the  brief  prayers 
which  we  call  "collects,"  have  breathed  the  plead- 
ings of  believers  into  the  ear  of  God  for  more  than 
twelve  centuries.  (Wheatley,  p.  212  ;  Procter,  p. 
271.)  Surely,  such  a  heritage,  consecrated  and 
hallowed  by  the  devotion  of  Christian  ages,  and 
fragrant  with  the  memories  of  saints  in  glory,  la 
a  possession  which  no  true  believer  will  despise. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  claims  all  this  sanction  of  the  centuries  for 
its  liturgy,  and  that  we  changed  what  was  handed 
down  to  us  by  the  Reformers  of  the  English 
Church.     Is  it  true  ? 

Through  three  hundred  years  of  growth  in  art, 
no  painter  has  been  vain  enough  to  try  his  pencil 
in  attempting  to  improve  Raphael's  matchless  pic- 
ture of  the  Transfiguration.  If  like  that  master- 
piece, the  liturgy  of  the  old  Church  came  down  to 
us  precisely  as  the  Reformers  bequeathed  it,  then 
his  would  indeed  be  a  bold  hand  which  should  ven- 
ture on  its  revision.  But  exactly  the  opposite  is 
the  truth.  The  Prayer  Book  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  has  known  no  less  than  seven 
revisions.  Five  of  these  were  made  in  England, 
and  two  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Some 
of  these  revisions  were  in  the  interest  of  Protes- 
tant and  Scriptural  truth,  some  sought  to  assimi- 


115 


late  its  worship  to  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
But  the  fact  stands  attested  by  the  unerring  wit- 
ness of  history,  that  our  fathers  both  in  England 
and  America,  have  no  less  than  seven  times  delib- 
erately revised  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
Like  some  old  cathedral,  it  has  seen  in  each  period 
of  the  past,  some  dilapidated  portion  taken  down, 
and  new  additions  made. 

It  is  ignorance  of  this  indubitable  fact  of  his- 
tory, which  has  made  many  Episcopalians  feel  that 
to  revise  the  Prayer  Book  were  a  sacrilege  like 
revising  the  Word  of  God.  They  have  been  led 
to  imagine  that  as  the  old  Ephesians  supposed 
that  their  silver  statue  of  Diana  dropped  down  from 
Jupiter  out  of  the  skies,  so  this  silvery  liturgy  had 
dropped  down  from  the  sacred  hands  of  the 
Reformers. 

When  Henry  YIII  for  wholly  worldly  reasons 
broke  away  from  the  Papal  power,  no  attempt  had 
been  made  to  have  throughout  the  English  Church 
a  uniform  public  service.  There  were  different 
forms  or ''uses,"  as  they  were  called,  indifferent 
dioceses  of  England.  But  with  Henry's  death, 
his  son,  Edward  VI,  mounted  the  throne.  It 
was  like  the  young  Josiah  succeeding  to  the 
orown  of  his  idolatrous  father.  Then  came 
what  may  be  called  the  first  revision  of  the 
Prayer  Book.  It  was  the  work  of  men  educated 
in  the   Roman    Church,    and  just   opening  their 


116 

blind  eyes  for  the  first  time  to  the  light.  They 
saw  "men  as  trees  walking.''  No  wonder  that  the 
liturgy  they  produced  was  full  of  the  false  teach- 
ings in  which  its  compilers  had  been  trained.  No 
wonder  that  this  ^rs^  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI 
taught  that  the  Lord's  supper  was  a  sacrifice,  the 
holy  table  an  altar.  No  wonder  that  it  permitted 
auricular  confession  and  prayers  for  the  dead. 

Cranmer  and  his  associates  w^ere  all  this  time 
studying  the  Bible.  Slowly  but  surely  they 
came  into  the  full  light  of  the  Gospel.  Three  years 
after  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  YI,  was- 
published,  they  could  not  conscientiously  use  it, 
and  in  1552  the  second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 
VI,  appeared.  Strange  as  it  may  seem— that  lit- 
urgy, given  to  the  Church  of  England,  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  years  ago,  when  the  Christian 
world  was  just  emerging  from  its  long  night  of 
Papal  darkness,  was  the  most  truly  Protestant  ser- 
vice book  that  the  English  Church  has  ever  pos- 
sessed. Its  baptismal  service,  it  is  true,  taught  a 
grievous  error.  But  aside  from  that,  it  was  almost 
wholly  Scriptural  and  evangelical.  It  rejected 
Superstitious  ceremonies.  It  cast  out  the  doctrine 
of  ''  the  real  presence  "  in  the  bread  and  wine.  It 
expunged  the  word  ''altar"  as  applied  to  the 
Lord's  table.  It  did  away  with  auricular  confes- 
sion. And  to  the  communion  service  it  added  the 
very  rubric   which  you  will   find  substantially  in 


117 

your  Reformed  Episcopal  Prayer  Book  (but  not 
in  tliafc  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church) 
explaining  that  when  we  kneel  at  the  communion, 
Tve  mean  no  act  of  adoration  of  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine.  (Blakeney,  p.  34.  Procter, 
pp.  37-39  ) 

Time  forbids  that  I  should  more  than  mention 
tlie  later  alterations  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  the 
English  Church.  In  1559,  Queen  Elizabeth  sought 
to  reconcile  her  Popish  subjects  by  a  new  revision. 
It  was  then  that  the  rubric  to  which  I  have  just 
referred  was  stricken  out.  (Blakeney,  p.  51  ;  Proc- 
ter, pp.  59  and  60.)  The  sun  of  reform  moved 
backward  in  the  ecclesiastical  sky.  Every  change 
made  was  in  the  direction  of  conformity  to  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

Twice  was  the  English  Prayer  Book  revised 
under  the  monarchs  of  the  House  of  Stuart.  But 
in  each  case,  the  changes  made  it  less  and  less  the 
Protestant  liturgy  which  Edward  YI  had  be- 
queathed. Under  Charles  II,  the  most  godless 
and  morally  corrupt  king  that  ever  disgraced  the 
English  crown,  no  less  than  six  hundred  changes 
were  made  in  the  services.  (Procter,  p.  137.)  But 
Archbishop  Laud  was  the  Primate  of  the  Church 
of  England.  A  Romanist  in  everything  except 
the  name,  he  gave  a  Romeward  impulse  to  the  work 
of  revision,  and  the  Prayer  Book  of  1662  became 
thenceforward  the  liturgy  of  the  English  Church, 


118 

(Procter,  Chap.  Y.)     (Fisher  on  the  Prayer  Book, 
Chap.  lY.) 

ISow  observe  what  this  hurried  historic  glance 
reveals.  It  demolishes  the  absurd  notion  that  tliere 
is  no  precedent  for  revising  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  What  our  English  forefathers  did  not  hesi- 
tate repeatedly  to  do,  we  have  a  right  to  undertake. - 
But  it  also  shows  the  reason  why  the  Church  of 
England  was  always  "  a  house  divided  against 
itself."  The  ancient  creeds  and  prayers,  the  Scrip- 
tural anthems  and  versicles,  and  indeed  the  whole 
framework  of  the  liturgy,  were  teaching  evangeli- 
cal truth  and  making  low  churchmen  of  multi- 
tudes who  faithfully  used  it  in  worship.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Church  catechism,  tbe  baptismal, 
the  communion  and  the  ordination  services  were 
mixing  subtle  poison  in  the  children's  bread,  and 
steadily  creating  a  drift  toward  tiie  Church  of 
Rome. 

A  century  passed  away,  and  the  American  colo- 
nies became  a  free  nation.  Episcopalians  were 
scattered  throughout  the  land,  without  bishops  and 
without  a  Prayer  Book  adapted  to  the  altered 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  In 
the  year  1785,  a  convention  of  clergy  and  laity 
met  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  to  lake  meas- 
ures for  the  organization  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  tlie  United  States.  Its  president 
was  the  venerable  William  White,  afterwards  bishop 


110 

of  that  Cburcli  in  Pennsylvania.  Among  its  lay 
delegates  were  such  men  as  John  J  a}',  James 
Duane,  Francis  Hopkinson,  and  Cliarles  Pinckney 
— men  whose  genius  and  patriotism  made  th& 
Revolutionary  period  of  our  national  history  an 
era  of  surpassing  splendor.  That  convention 
appointed  a  committee  to  revise  the  English 
Prayer  Book.  The  result  of  their  work  was  "  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785." 

In  all  its  distinguishing  features  it  went  back  to 
the  old  Reformation  work  of  1552 — the  second  and 
Protestant  Prayer  Book  of  King  Edward  YI.  It 
left  out  all  assertion  of  necessary  regeneration  in 
baptism,  all  suggestion  of  "real  presence  "  in  the- 
bread  and  wine  of  the  Lord's  supper  ;  it  expunged 
the  word  "priest,"  and  substituted  "minister." 
In  one  word,  it  was-^  Protestant  and  evangelical 
liturgy  from  cover  to  coyer. 

Adopted  by  the  convention,  the  new  Prayer 
Book  was  read  in  worship  at  the  closing  session  by 
Dr.  White.     Let  us  see  what  followed. 

Dr.  William  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Dr. 
Samuel  Provoost,  of  New  York,  were  subsequently 
chosen  bishops,  and  on  the  7th  of  February,  1787, 
were  consecrated  to  their  office  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  at  Lambeth  in  England.  That 
consecration  was  on  the  basis  of  the  Prayer 
Book  as  revised  by  the  convention  of  1785. 
(See   Appendix)*  That   Prayer    Book    of  Bishop 

^  Appendix,  D. 


120 


White,  is  in  all  essential  features  the  one  adopted 
b}^  our  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  and  with 
which  we  worship  to-day. 

But  before  1785,  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury,  of  Connec- 
ticut— an  extreme  ritualist  and  high  churchman,  had 
failed  of  securing  for  himself  Episcopal  consecration 
from  the  English  Church.  Its  bishops  had  grave 
doubts  whether  he  had  ever  been  duly  chosen  to 
the  office.  (Internat.  Review,  July,  1881,  pp.  319- 
322.)  Then  Dr.  Seabury  appealed  to  the  Scottish 
Episcopal  Church  to  aid  him.  By  that  extreme 
semi-Romish  communion,  his  secret  election,  in 
which  no  layman  had  any  part,  was  accepted,  and 
he  was  consecrated  at  Aberdeen  nearly  three  years 
before  the  consecration  of  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost. 

But  Dr.  Seabury's  consecration  was  given  by 
the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church  with  a  purpose  in 
view.  It  was  followed  by  his  solemn  pledge  that 
he  would  introduce  into  the  American  liturgy, 
the  idea  of  a  priestly  sacrifice  in  the  Lord's 
supper.  (See  Bp.  Seabury's  "Concordat,"  in 
Blakeney's  Hist,  of  the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  159-161.) 
That  pledge  he  fulfilled  to  the  letter.  He  per- 
suaded Bishop  White  to  give  a  reluctant  assent  to 
uniting  the  Church  in  Connecticut  with  the  newly 
formed  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Provoost  to  the  last  was  opposed  to 
Bishop   Seabury's  admission.     But  in  1789,  when 


121 

the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  had  hardly  come  into 
general  use,  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury  suc- 
ceeded in  overthrowing  the  work  of  the  first  Con- 
vention of  the  American  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Prayer  Book  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Eng- 
lish bishops  had  consecrated  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost,  was  rejected.  A  new  liturgy,  permeated 
by  the  sacramental  and  ritualistic  teachings  of 
Bishop  Seabury  and  his  Scottish  consecrators^ 
was  adopted.  This  last  is  the  Prayer  Book  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to-day. 

The  Prayer  Book  of  the  Reformed  Episcopalian 
is  the  old  and  original  liturgy,  adopted  by  the  first 
Convention   of  the    American   Episcopal    Church, 
and  on  the  ground  of   which  its  first  bishops  were 
consecrated. 

III.    How  SHOULD  THE  REFORMED   EPISCOPALIAN 

TO  USE  HIS  Prayer  Book  ? 

It  is  needless  to  say  tliat  he  ought  to  use  it 
intelligently.  The  best  of  tools  may  be  worthless, 
and  even  dano^erous,  in  the  hands  of  the  io^nv^^rant. 
The  Prayer  Book  needs  to  be  understood  in  order 
to  be  a  genuine  help  to  devotion.  To  such  an 
understanding,  its  history  which  we  have  studied 
in  this  sermon,  is  essential. 

But  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  needs  to  be  an 
intelligent  student  of  his  liturgy  because  sincere 
Christians  are  sometimes  intensely  prejudiced 
against  it.      The  believer  who   worships    with   a 


122 

liturgy  should  be  able  in  all  Clirislian  cliarit}^  to 
defend  it.  He  vvill  find  that  man}"-  earnest  but 
ignorant  Christians  believe  a  Prayer  Book  to  be 
Popish.  He  will  be  told,  "  You  worship  with  a 
book  ;  so  does  the  Eomanist." 

The  answer  is,  that  it  is  no  argument  against 
what  is  good  in  religion,  that  a  corrupt  church 
employs  it.  On  the  same  ground  we  might  reject 
the  Atonement  and  the  Trinity.  Does  any  man 
refuse  quinine  when  malaria  has  laid  hold  upon  his 
physical  strength,  because  the  tree  which  fur- 
nishes the  drug,  grows  in  the  most  malarious  land 
on  earth  ? 

Nor  is  it  true  that  the  Roman  Church  has  any- 
thing corresponding  to  our  "  common  prayer. ' ' 
Her  priests  and  her  people  have  different  service 
books.  But  any  one  book  which  requires  concur- 
rent worship  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  and  the  laity, 
is  something  unknown  to  the  Papal  Church.  -(Mc- 
Clintock  &  Strong's  Cyclop.,  Art.  "Liturgy.") 

We  shall  also  find  that  the  prejudice  exists,  that 
a  liturg}'^  inevitably  produces  formalism.  We  are 
told  that  a  Prayer  Book  makes  the  worshipper  a 
mere  parrot-like  employer  of  phrases  to  which  he 
attaches  no  meaning.  But  the  argument  is  child- 
ish. You  ma}^  pour  melted  lead  into  a  mould,  or 
let  it  flow  freely  out  upon  the  ground.  But  it  will 
grow  hard  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  If  a  man 
loses  his  hold  on  Christ,  and  ceases  to  seek  sin- 


123 

cerely  for  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  there 
will  be  coldness  and  spiritual  hardening,  deadness 
and  formality,  whether  he  pray  extemporaneously 
or  with  a  liturgy.  For  many  years,  though  myself 
an  Episcopalian,  I  listened  every  Sunday  to  the 
preaching,  and  joined  in  the  public  prayers  of  a 
distinguished  Congregational  pastor.  Yet  with 
each  sentence  of  "the  long  prayer,"  I  knew  what 
the  next  was  to  be,  precisely  as  I  do  in  the  peti- 
tions of  the  litany.  It  was  a  form  of  prayer  after 
all.  Yet  I  am  very  sure  that  sainted  man  was  not 
"  a  formalist." 

Can  any  good  reason  be  given  against  precom- 
posed  prayers,  which  does  not  equally  apply  to 
precomposed  hymns  of  praise  ?  Well  did  old  John 
Newton  write, 

"  Crito  freely  will  rehearse 
Forms  of  prayer  and  praise  in  verse  ; 
Why  should  Crito  then  suppose 
Forms  are  sinful  when  in  prose  ? 
Must  my  form  be  deemed  a  crime, 
Merely  from  the  want  of  rhyme  ?" 

Still  again,  prejudice  charges  that  in  the  litany 
especially,  we  indulge  in  what  Christ  forbade  as 
^'  vain  repetitions.^' 

But  the  intelligent  worshipper  with  a  Prayer 
Book  cannot  forget  that  the  Psalms  of  David,  com- 
posed and  used  for  public  worship,  are  marked  by 
precisely  such  repetitions.  Nor  did  our  Lord 
rebuke  repetition  in  prayer,  but  "vain  "  or  empty 


124- 

repetition.  On  that  awful  night  of  His  agony  in 
the  garden,  three  times  did  He  pray  that  the  cup 
might  pass  from  Him,  "saying,"  St.  Matthew 
expressly  records,  "  the  same  words.' '  We  need  not 
fear  formalism  when  following  in  his  blessed  steps. 
An  intelligent  use  of  his  Prayer  Book  will  pre- 
vent formalism  in  public  worship,  because  no  Re- 
formed Episcopalian  can  study  his  liturgy,  with- 
out perceiving  that  it  is  not  a  tyrant  to  hold  him 
in  bondage,  but  &  teacher  to  instruct  him.  He  can- 
not open  his  Prayer  Book  without  confronting  the 
"Declaration  of  Principles,"  announcing  that  this 
Church  retains  a  liturgy,  '•'' wliicli  shall  not  be 
imperative,  or  repressive  of  freedom  in  prayer.''^ 
He  turns  a  few  pages,  and  finds  an  extract  from 
the  Canons,  ordered  by  the  General  Council  to  be 
printed  in  every  edition  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
which  provides  "  that  nothing  in  this  Canon  is  to 
be  understood  as  precluding  extempore  prayer 
before  or  after  sermons,  or  on  emergent  occa- 
sions." 

After  the  General  Thanksgiving  in  the  morning 
prayer,  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  reads  a  rubric 
distinctly  allov/ing  extemporaneous  supplication 
to  be  substituted  for  what  are  called  *'  the  occa- 
sional prayers,"  i.  e.,  those  for  the  sick,  the  afflicted, 
or  those  in  peril  by  sea  or  land.  And  if  this  shall 
lead  him  to  a  broader  investigation  ot  the  spirit 
and  practice  of  his  Church,  he  will  find  that  its  Gen- 


125 

eral  Council  has  directed  the  encouragement  of 
laymen  to  engage  in  meetings  for  social  prayer, 
and  that  such  meetings  are  universal  in  the  parishes 
which  compose  our  entire  communion. 

But  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  should  use  his 
prayer  book  not  only  intelligently,  but  spiritually. 
Who  is  the  man  that  is  stirred  in  soul,  uplifted 
into  a  new  world,  quickened  in  every  faculty,  as  he 
gazes  on  a  masterpiece  of  art,  or  listens  to  burning 
eloquence,  or  is  swept  along  the  tide  of  delicious 
song  ?  Only  the  man  who  deliberately  yields  him- 
self up  to  it,  and  loses  himself  and  all  around  him, 
in  it. 

So  it  is  in  worship,  whether  extemporaneous  or 
precomposed.  We  must  give  ourselves  sincerely 
to  it.  We  bow  our  heads  in  silent  prayer  when  we 
enter  the  sanctuary.  Doubtless  we  ask  that  such- 
absorption  in  worship  shall  be  our  experience.  But 
how  do  we  carry  it  out  ?  I  fear  that  too  often  sve 
grieve  the  Spirit  by  making  no  honest  effort  to  lose 
ourselves  in  the  service.  Some  are  in  the  habit  of 
leaving  the  worship  to  their  neighbors.  Others 
respond  indeed  to  the  psalter,  but  take  no  part  in 
the  litany,  nor  have  a  hearty  voice  for  the  '*  Amen  " 
at  the  close  of  every  prayer. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  service, 
the  Prayer  Book  should  never  leave  your  hands, 
except  in  the  Scripture  reading.  When  you  close 
it  in  anthem  or  in  prayer,   you  lead  yourself  into 


126 

temptation  to  wandering  tlioughts,  and  set  an  evil 
example  to  those  around  you. 

Nor  only  so;  but  our  very  postures  have  their 
relation  to  our  spiritual  enjoyment  and  blessino-  in 
the  worship.  The  reason  why  people  do  not  kneel 
i-n  prayer  is  because  they  are  not  praying.  If 
they  realized  that  they  were  actually  pouring  their 
hearts'  needs  into  the  ear  of  God,  they  could  not 
help  assuming  the  natural  attitude  of  prayer.  And 
the  posture  would  in  its  turn  react  in  helping  to 
make  their  devotion  a  living  reality.  To  lounge 
indolently  while  Gods  praise  is  sung,  has  but  one 
meaning,  when  age  or  infirmity  do  not  excuse  it.  It 
means  that  there  is  no  praise  in  your  heart.  Even 
though  you  have  no  musical  power,  with  your 
open  Prayer  Book  in  your  hand,  you  can  follow 
the  glowing  anthem  or  the  sublime  Te  Deum. 

Remember  also  that  your  children  can  be  trained 
to  public  worship  in  a  liturgical  service,  as  they 
cannot  be  where  all  except  the  singing  of  hymns  is 
extern  [)Oraneous.  They  have  a  right  to  the  teach- 
ing power  of  the  service.  Its  *^  line  upon  line,  and 
})recept  upon  precept,"  can  be  inwoven  with  the 
earliest  dawnings  of  childish  intelligence.  But 
only  as  parents  lead  their  children  to  the  house 
of  worship,  and  guide  them  in  the  use  of  the 
liturgy  by  their  aid  and  their  example. 

Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  an  earnest  opponent  of  litur- 
gical worship,  once  wrote  that  when  Episcopalians 


127 

took  part  in  prayer  meetings,  "  their  prayers  are 
models  of  simple,  pure  and  holy  worship." 
(Barnes'  Position  of  tlie  Evangl.  Party  in  the 
Episcopal  Church,  p.  31.) 

No  wonder.  From  childhood  they  had  been 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  a  worship  which  filled 
the  souls,  and  lingered  on  the  lips  of  martyrs  for 
Jesus.  They  had  caught  the  refrain  of  the 
anthem  which  echoed  in  dimly-lighted  catacombs, 
"  in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth." 

'-  Thou  art  the  King  of  Glory,  O  Christ  I 

"  Thou  art  the  everlastins:  Son  of  the  Father  I" 


THE     REFORMED     EPISCOPALIAN     AND 
THE   CHURCH  YEAR. 


^^For  Paul  determined  to  sail  by  Ephesus^  because 
he  would  not  spend  his  time  in  Asia  ;  for  he  hasted, 
if  it  were  possible  for  him,  to  be  at  Jerusalem  the 
Day  of  Pentecost,^^  Acts  xx  :  16. 

^^  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and 
years  ;  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed 
upon  you  labor  in  vain,^^  Galat.  iv  :   10,  11. 


Our  two  textg  present  two  seemingly  contradic- 
tory portraits  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 

The  variations  between  two  photographs  of  the 
same  person,  may  often  be  explained  by  a  change 
of  dress,  a  different  attitude,  or  a  fleeting  expres- 
sion of  some  inner  feeling  sweeping  across  the 
countenance  like  a  cloud  across  the  sky. 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  account  for  the  startling 
divergence  between  these  two  pictures  of  the  same 
religious  teacher.  At  the  first  glance  they  appear 
to  contradict  each  other.  On  the  river  Tigris, 
the  Arab  boatmen  pray  with  their  faces  to  the 
East.  But  so  crooked  is  the  stream,  that  in 
order  to  keep  the  eastward  position,  they  are 
constantly  shifting  their  attitude  from  one  direc- 
tion to  another.  Shall  we  conclude  that  the 
(128) 


129 


current  of  St.  Paul's  life  was  so  tortuous  that 
he  was  ever  changing  his  attitude  in  reference 
to  great  and  momentous  questions  ? 

Look  for  a  moment  at  these  two  contrasted  pic- 
tures. The  first  represents  the  apostle  on  his 
way  from  the  continent  of  Europe  to  Jerusalem. 
Ephesus,  with  its  Christian  Church,  lay  just  on 
the  path  his  ship  would  follow.  To  the  elders  and 
the  people  of  that  community  of  saints,  he  was 
attached  by  ties  only  to  be  compared  with  those 
binding  the  parent  to  the  child.  Yet  he  "  deter- 
mined to  sail  by  Ephesus  "  In  the  Greek  it  reads 
^^past  Ephesus."  Why?  Did  they  not  need  his 
fatherly  counsel  ?  Would  there  be  no  comfort 
to  his  own  soul  in  "  beholding  their  order  and  the 
steadfastness  of  their  faith  in  Christ?" 

These  were  not  the  causes  which  lay  behind 
his  resolve.  The  reason  is  plainly  given.  He  was 
determined  to  be  at  Jerusalem  on  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost. Nor  was  this  merely  the  fixing  of  a  date  at 
which  he  had  set  his  heart  on  reaching  the  Holy 
City.  For,  on  a  previous  occasion,  he  hurried 
away  from  the  entreaties  of  his  friends  with  the 
explanation,  "  I  must  by  all  means  keep  this  feast 
which  Cometh  in  Jerusalem,"  Acts  xviii :  21. 

It  was  a  strange  reason  for  St.  Paul  to  give. 
The  feasts  and  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic  law  had 
been  abrogated  in  Christ.  Had  He  not  "  blotted 
out   the   handwriting   of   ordinances  "   which  was 


130 

against  us,  "  nailing  it  to  His  cross  ?"  Yet 
apparently  St.  Paul  was  so  eager  to  observe 
this  dead  ordinance  of  the  Jewish  law  and  ritual^ 
that  he  sails  past  the  faithful  flock  of  Ephesus  in 
his  haste  to  keep  Pentecost  at  Jerusalem. 

Now  look  at  the  contrasted  picture.  Portraits 
often  differ  because  taken  at  different  periods  of 
life.  But  unless  all  our  chronology  is  at  fault, 
the  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  varies  but 
a  year  or  two  from  that  of  this  voyage  past  Ephe- 
sus and  its  Christian  Church.  (Yido.  Conybeare 
&  Howson,  Farrar's  Life  of  St.  Paul.) 

That  epistle  is  full  of  sad  reproofs  of  the  be* 
lievers  in  Galatia.  They  were  apparently  making 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  secondary  to  the  observance  of 
Jewish  forms  and  ordinances.  Not  least  danger- 
ous in  its  perversion  of  the  truth  was  the  fact  that 
they  insisted  upon  the  Mosaic  feasts  and  fasts  as  a 
necessary  part  of  Christian  obedience.  *'  Ye  ob- 
serve days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years." 
So  strongly  does  St.  Paul  feel  the  peril  of  this 
error,  that  he  adds,  "  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I 
have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain." 

How  strangely  inconsistent  does  this  reproof 
appear,  when  put  side  by  side  with  the  apostle's 
intense  eagerness  not  to  miss  the  celebration  of 
Pentecost  at  Jerusalem  1 

Yet  one  simple  thought,  which  runs  all  through 
the  New  Testament,  is  like  the  stroke  of  a  master, 


131 


bringing  these  two  discordant  views  of  the  apostle 
into  perfect  harmony.  That  thought  is  this  :  The 
Christian  may  often  accept  as  a  privilege,  that 
which  he  allows  no  man  to  impose  on  him  as  a 
bondage. 

No  British  subject  shall  outdo  me  in  profound 
honor  to  the  noble  woman  who  wears  the  crown  of 
England.  It  is  my  right  and  privilege  thus  to 
reverence  the  exaltation  of  a  pure  womanhood. 
But  if  any  sought  to  impose  such  reverence  upon 
me  as  the  ground  of  my  citizenship,  and  the  condi- 
tion of  my  rights  as  a  free  man,  it  would  stir  in  my 
veins  blood  which  flows  from  the  far-off  fountain  of 
revolutionary  ancestors.  Like  St.  Paul,  "  I  was 
free  born." 

Precisely  here  lay  the  point  of  divergence  be- 
tween St.  Paul  and  the  Galatian  Church.  The 
apostle  could  find  spiritual  blessing  in  keeping  cer- 
tain seasons  which  his  Jewish  fathers  had  observed. 
But  the  Galatians  sought  to  make  them  the  basis 
of  Christian  character.  Just  as  they  imposed  cir- 
cumcision on  Gentile  converts  as  necessary  to  sal- 
vation through  Christ,  so  they  doubtless  imposed 
a  regard  for  Jewish  days  and  months  and  years,  as 
an  essential  of  Christian  character.  It  was  against 
such  perversion  of  the  believer's  liberty,  that  St. 
Paul  entered  his  ringing  protest. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  draws  precisely  this 


132 

line  of  distinction  between  the  use  and  abuse  of 
what  he  calls  **  the  Christian  Year." 

No  Puritan  shall  revolt  more  indignantly  than 
he  against  imposing  any  seasons  or  times  upon  the 
Christian  Church  or  the  Christian  member  of  the 
Church.  Yet  he  may  find  in  those  seasons,  helps 
to  growth  in  grace,  which  he  counts  among  his 
sweetest  Gospel  privileges.  Let  us  then  inquire, 
What  is  the  Christian  Yeab,  which  the  Re- 
formed Episcopalian  observes? 

A  systematic  order  is  something  which  generally 
lies  beneath  the  surface.  A  glance  at  an  arching 
elm  or  gnarled  oak,  reveals  to  me  the  grace  and 
grandeur  of  the  tree.  But  it  takes  investigation 
to  discover  the  perfect  system  by  which  the  roots 
gather  nutriment,  and  the  minute  veins  bear  the 
vital  sap  through  trunk,  and  branch,  and  twig,  out 
to  the  remotest  leaf  that  quivers  in  the  breeze. 

In  war  time,  a  new  recruit  is  enlisted  in  the 
army.  In  the  first  glow  of  his  enthusiastic 
patriotism,  the  one  idea  which  lays  hold  upon  his 
mind,  is  that  he  is  to  fight  the  battles  of  his  countr3\ 
But  it  takes  but  little  time  to  learn  that  a  soldier's 
life  is  to  be  governed  by  a  plan  which  assigns  to 
every  day  and  every  hour  its  own  peculiar  duty. 

Not  unlike  this,  is  the  discovery  which  gradually 
comes  to  him  who  enters  on  tlie  work  of  a  Chris- 
tian soldier  in  a  liturgical  and   Episcopal  Church. 

Educated    perhaps    in     some    other     Christian 


133 

Church,  he  only  recognizes  at  first,  the  fact  that 
Episcopalians,  in  their  public  worship,  employ  cer- 
tain precomposed  forms  of  prayer  and  praise,  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

But,  by  and  by,  it  dawns  upon  him  that  under- 
neath this  fact  there  is  a  system,  an  order  and  a 
plan,  which  gradually  reveal  themselves.  He  can- 
not foUow  the  worship  of  the  Prayer  Book,  with- 
out perceiving  that  it  takes  a  year,  and  dividing  it 
into  certain  seasons,  engraves  upon  each  of  these, 
the  commemoration  of  some  one  great  Christian  doc- 
trine or  some  event  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour.  All 
history  is  witness  to  the  value  of  such  a  system  as  a 
mode  of  education.  We  may  cut  deep  in  marble 
or  bronze  the  inscription  by  which  we  would  per- 
petuate some  fact  or  principle  or  honored  name. 
But  "the  tooth  of  time  "  is  relentless.  All  ma- 
terial monuments  crumble.  All  inscriptions  upon 
them  fade.  But  the  seasons  return  with  unfailing 
certainty.  That  which  Is  engraved  upon  a  day,  a 
week  or  a  month,  will  reappear  as  surely  as  time's 
revolution  does  its  work. 

The  Reformed  Episcopalian  who  follows  the 
leadings  of  his  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  will  find 
directly  succeeding  the  communion  service,  a  series 
of  "  collects,  epistles,  and  gospels,  for  use  through- 
out a  year."  The  collect  is  simply  a  brief  prayer; 
the  epistle  is  an  extract  from  one  of  the  letters 
which  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were 


134 

written  to  the  early  Christians,  and  the  gospel  is  a 
selection  from  one  of  the  four  histories  of  our 
Saviour's  life  on  earth.  But  the  three — the  collect, 
gospel  and  epistle,  are  like  the  harmonious  chords 
of  a  perfect  instrument  of  music.  They  blend  in 
teaching  the  same  tru-th.  Some  one  special  fact 
or  doctrine  breathes  through  all  three  alike. 

But  when  you  turn  to  these  services  for  the 
Christian  Year,  you  discover — perhaps  to  your 
surprise  (if  educated  in  some  other  church),  that 
its  first  day  bears  no  relation  to  what  we  commonly 
call  the  New  Year  season.  We  begin  not  with  Jan- 
uary, but  with  a  Sunday  falling  in  December,  or 
possibl}'  even  in  November.  For  ours  is  not  the 
secular  year,  not  the  year  of  the  astronomer,  not  the 
year  of  the  man  of  business.  It  is  the  Christian 
Year. 

The  First  Sunday  in  Advent  is  our  New  Year's 
Day.  The  services  are  evidently  meant  to  take  us 
back,  as  it  were,  to  tlie  days  when  men  were  look- 
ing for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God.  We  stand 
where  such  Israelites  as  Zacharias,  the  father  of 
John  the  Baptist,  and  Simeon,  and  Anna  stood, 
and  watch  and  wait  for  the  angel's  song  to  an- 
nounce  that  Christ  is  born.  Three  Sundays  more 
make  up  the  Advent  Season.  But  through  them 
all  **  one  unchanging  purpose  runs," 

It  makes  every  fa'itliful  member  of  our  Church, 
like  one  who  looks  out  to  sea,  expecting  the  ship 


135 


which  bears  homeward  his  long  absent  friend.  It 
leads  us  to  realize  God's  infinite  love  in  sending 
His  own  Son  to  live  with  men  and  to  die  for  men. 
Above  all,  it  will  not  let  us  forget  that  He  has- 
given  His  word  that  He  will  come  again. 

Our  Master  foretold  that  even  His  own  people 
should  "  slumber  and  sleep,"  and  become  forgetful 
of  this  cardinal  fact  of  His  Second  Advent.  But 
the  Episcopalian  who  allows  this  truth  to  slip  from 
his  grasp,  does  so  in  defiance  of  his  Church,, 
which  annually  sets  the  services  of  the  first  four 
Sundays  of  the  Christian  Year,  like  watchmen  to- 
cry  in  drowsy  ears — "  The  Lord  is  at  liand." 

Then  comes  the  birthday  of  our  Lord.  Our 
appointed  worship  for  Christmas  Day  is  full  of  glad- 
ness. But  it  is  a  gladness  like  tliat  which  Isaiah 
foretold,  **  when  a  holy  solemnity  is  kept."  Wher- 
ever there  are  hearts  to  glow  with  joy,  and  tongues 
to  sing  in  praise,  the  fixing  of  this  one  day  concen- 
trates every  thought  upon  the  love  that  led  the  Son 
of  God  to  humble  Himself  to    be   born  of  woman. 

A  little  further  on,  and  we  reach  the  season  bear- 
ing  the  Greek  name — "  the  Epiphany.''  It  means 
literally  "  the  shining  forth."  It  suggests  to  our 
minds  a  light  shut  in  and  obstructed  by  opaque 
walls,  suddenly  bursting  through  all  that  dims  ita 
glory,  and  flinging  its  rays  far  out  upon  the  night. 
The  stranger  to  our  services  is  told  that  by  the 
Epiphany  season  we  recall  the  visit  of  the  "  Magi  ** 


186 


' — "  the  wise  men  from  the  East  " — to  the  newborn 
King  of  the  Jews.  Perhaps  the  appointment  not 
only  of  a  chosen  day,  but  of  several  Sundays 
which  follow,  to  commemorate  an  event  briefly  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  demands  explanation. 
But  in  the  Epiphany  lies  the  title  deed  of  the 
Christian  who  is  not  of  Israel's  race,  to  his  share 
in  Christ's  salvation.  The  Old  Testament  never 
let  the  subject  drop,  of  the  coming  Epiphany  when 
Gentiles  should  know  the  salvation  which  began 
■with  the  Jewish  race.  Every  prophet  foretold  that 
glorious  day.  Over  and  over  did  Jesus  Himself 
in  both  parable  and  direct  statement  teach  His  dis- 
ciples— "  Other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this 
fold."  And  the  star-led  Magi  from  the  distant  East 
were  the  first  of  that  mighty  multitude  of  Gentile 
birth  to  claim  what  God  had  promised.  The  Sun- 
days of  the  Epiphany  season  are  not  out  of  pro- 
portion to  the  magnitude  and  importance  of  the 
event  they  fasten  in  the  memory. 

Nor  only  so  ;  but  Epiphany  is  ever  like  a  hand 
that  points  us  to  work  undone,  like  a  voice  that  re- 
minds us  of  duty.  If  we  forget  that  there  are  mil- 
lions yet  of  Gentiles  on  the  earth — heathen  who 
never  heard  of  Christ — this  season  of  the  Chris- 
tian Year  ever  urges  us  to  missionary  work  and 
liberality  and  prayer. 

Passing  from  Epiphany,  we  are  reminded  by  our 
services   of   the   approach   of    Lent,   and   of  the 


137 

Easter  glory  which  appears  beyond  it.  Three  Sun^ 
days  intervene  between  the  season  of  Epiphany 
and  that  of  Lent.  They  bear  the  old  Latin  names 
of  Septuagesiaia — the  seventieth,  Sexagesima  — 
the  sixtieth,  and  Quinquagesirna — the  fiftieth.  Not 
accurately,  but  only  in  round  numbers,  they  sug- 
gest to  the  mind  that  we  have  reached  in  our  jour- 
ney to  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  the  seventieth,, 
the  sixtieth,  the  fiftieth  day  before  Easter. 

If  you  study  the  collect,  epistle  and  gospel  for 
each  of  those  days,  you  will  find  that  with  an  in- 
creasing solemnity  they  are  leading  you  toward  the 
one  great  thought  of  Lent— true  and  godly  sor- 
row and  sincere  repentance  for  sin. 

As  you  push  on  in  the  examination  of  the  ap- 
pointed services  of  the  Prayer  Book,  3'ou  find  that 
Ash  Wednesday  opens  the  door  to  a  season  of  forty 
days  of  special  humiliation,  self-examination  and 
prayer.  The  name  which  this  day  bears  is  one 
which  grew  out  of  an  old  custom  now  long 
disused,  of  employing  ashes  as  a  token  of  mourn- 
ing. To  us  the  mere  name  is  nothing,  except  as  it 
serves  to  mark  the  day  on  which  we  begin  the 
solemn  season  to  which  it  introduces  us. 

But  the  stranger  in  our  Church  naturally  asks, 
what  the  six  weeks  of  the  Lenten  season  signify  ? 
Why  do  we  set  apart  this  fixed  period  for  special 
religious  exercises  ?  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
appointed  worship  during  these  forty  days  ? 


138 


The  answer  must  needs  be  brief.  But  its  phil- 
osophy is  rooted  deep  in  the  necessities  of  our  spirit- 
ual life.  The  growing  Christian  is  one  who  obeys 
the  apostolic  direction  to  "  pray  without  ceasing." 
He  may  not  every  moment  be  touching  the  keys  of 
the  instrument,  but  he  does  keep  it  in  tune  ready 
to  respond  with  the  music  dear  to  the  ear  of  God. 
Yet  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that,  with  all  this 
constant  prayerfulness  of  spirit,  he  must  have 
appointed  times  to  pray. 

But  what  is  true  of  the  member  of  the  Church 
is  equally  true  of  the  whole  body.  What  is  needed 
in  each  day's  journey,  is  needed  in  the  whole  year. 

We  have  pressing  upon  us  an  imperious  de- 
mand of  our  spiritual  nature,  that  some  period  in 
every  year  should  be  made  a  time  of  special  and 
peculiar  self-examination  and  reconsecration  to  the 
service  of  the  Master.  Can  there  be  any  clearer 
proof  of  this  fact  than  the  evidence  which  meets 
us  in  the  annual  efforts  in  revival  work,  put  forth 
each  year  by  our  sister  churches  ?  Not  one  of 
them  which  does  not  have  its  Lenten  season.  It 
may  differ  in  its  date  and  its  duration  from  our 
own.  It  may  bear  a  different  name.  But  the  idea 
and  the  object  are  absolutely  the  same.  Some  of 
our  Methodist  brethren  may  object  to  the  Lenten 
season.  But  their  own  ''  protracted  meetings  "  are 
really  a  Lent  under  another  name.  The  Evangeli- 
cal   Alliance,    composed    of    the    Gospel   loving 


139 


churches  of  the  Protestant  world,  has  not  hesita- 
ted to  appoint  a  fixed  season  as  "  a  week  of  prayer. " 
If  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  believes  that 
he  needs  thus  to  set  apart  six  weeks  instead  of 
one,  he  is  only  carrying  out  to  a  fuller  degree  the 
principle  established  by  other  evangelical  Chris- 
tians, 

During  this  solemn  season  our  services  con- 
stantly emphasize  the  fact  of  our  own  sinfulness. 
Like  John  the  Baptist,  they  are  preachers  of  re- 
pentance. But  with  a  fullness  which  the  rough- 
clad  herald  of  Christ  never  exhibited  in  his  proc- 
lamation of  the  Lamb  of  God,  they  reveal  an 
atoning  Saviour. 

Step  by  step,  they  lead  us  on  through  the  weeks, 
until  in  Passion  Week — the  close  of  Lent — they 
dwell  upon  a  suffering  Saviour  in  all  the  details  of 
His  atoning  work.  With  Good  Friday  we  look 
upon  the  cross  and  behold  our  Substitute  before 
the  law,  which  we  have  broken  ;  as  He  bears  "  our 
sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree." 

Easter  Sunday  comes  to  set  God's  seal  to 
Christ's  completed  sacrifice.  It  leads  us  to  the 
empty  sepulchre,  and  while  it  testifies  to  the 
Father's  acceptance  of  the  finished  work  of  the 
Son,  it  also  assures  the  believer  that  the  same 
power  which  burst  the  seal  and  rolled  away  the 
stone,  shall  raise  his  body  from  the  grave,  to  be 
gloriously  immortal. 


140 


Time  forbids  more  than  an  allusion  to  the 
remainder  of  the  Christian  Year.  We  set  apart  a 
day  to  commemorate  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord, 
and  thus  to  keep  in  mind  the  grand  work  of  Jesus 
in  the  present,  as  *'  He  ever  liveth  to  make  inter- 
cession for  us."  Then  on  Whitsunday  we  recall 
that  Pentecost  when  "  a  nation  was  born  in  a  day." 
Thus  each  year  we  preclude  the  possibility  that 
the  Reformed  Episcopalian  should  ever  forget 
the  person,  the  work,  or  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

On  Trinity  Sunday  we  bear  our  testimony  with 
the  Christian  Church  of  all  ages,  to  the  central 
truth  of  the  three-fold  personality  in  one  eternal 
Godhead. 

The  objection  has  been  sometimes  urged  that  by 
thus  affixing  to  a  certain  period  of  the  year,  the 
special  consideration  of  some  one  duty,  or  doc- 
trine, or  fact  in  our  Lord's  career  on  earth,  we 
abridge  the  liberty  of  the  Christian  minister.  It 
has  been  argued  that  thus  to  narrow  the  range  of 
topics  toward  which  our  minds  and  hearts  are 
turned,  is  to  leave  no  room  for  a  thousand  themes 
perfectly  in  accord  with  Gospel  preaching,  and  to 
crowd  out  a  host  of  Scripture  subjects  which  do 
not  directly  belong  to  any  of  the  Sundays  from 
Advent  to  Easter.  A  glance  at  the  Prayer  Book 
affords  the  sufficient  answer.  Following  Trinity 
Sunday,  come  the  twenty-five  Sundays  after  Trinity. 


141 

While  each  of  them  has  its  collect,  epistle,  and 
gospel,  in  perfect  harmony  with  each  other,  the 
services  do  not  prescribe  any  one  great  theme,  like 
those  of  Christmas,  Easter,  or  Whitsunday.  Thus 
through  fully  one-half  of  the  Sundays  of  the  year, 
our  Church  has  plainly  permitted  the  widest  range 
of  expository  preaching. 

It  may  be  well  at  this  point  to  notice  that  the 
Church  Year  of  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  differs 
in  one  important  feature  from  that  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church.  In  our  revision  of  the 
Prayer  Book  we  dropped  the  special  services  for 
what  were  called  "saints'  days."  We  were  will- 
ing to  honor  apostles  and  martyrs,  even  as  they 
followed  in  the  footsteps  of  Christ,  But  when  we 
found  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had  multiplied 
these  days  commemorative  of  so-called  "saints,'* 
till  the  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  of  the 
year  were  not  half  enough  to  give  one  day  to  each 
— when  we  found  that  ritualists  and  Roraanizers- 
were  constantly  adding  to  the  number  of  names  to 
be  remembered  by  some  holy  day,  we  felt  that- 
the  line  must  somewhere  be  sharply  and  clearly 
drawn.  We  therefore  made  the  Christian  Year  ta- 
be  a  memorial  of  no  sinful  mortal,  however  pure 
His  life,  or  glorious  His  death.  From  one  end  to 
the  other,  it  reveals  '^  Jesus  only."  Like  the  old 
painter,  who,  finding  that  in  his  picture  of  the' 
Lord's    supper,  the   chalice   which   held   the  wine 


142 

drew  the  admiration  of  beholders,  and  so  in  "his 
jealousy  for  Christ's  glory,  dashed  his  brush 
through  the  rare  painting  of  the  cup — we  blotted 
out  from  our  Church  Year,  all  which  could  dis- 
tract attention  from  Jesus  our  Lord.  • 

Our  rapid  glance  at  what  constitutes  the  Chris- 
tian Year,  has  already  suggested  some  of  the 
reasons  why  every  Reformed  Episcopalian  should 
avail  himself  of  the  helps  to  growth  which  it 
affords.     Let  us  briefly  sum  them  up. 

We  do  not  for  one  moment  claim  that  the  Scrip- 
ture requires  any  such  observance.  We  dare  not, 
therefore,  if  we  would,  impose  the  Christian  Year 
upon  any  Christian's  conscience.  St.  Paul  would 
stir  in  his  bloody  grave  to  rebuke  us,  as  he  rebuked 
the  Galatian  Church,  if  we  demanded  that  believers 
should  keep  these  appointed  days  as  essential  to 
the  Christian  life. 

Christmas,  Lent,  Easter,  Whitsunday  can  all  be 
traced  back  to  a  very  early  period  of  the  Church's 
history.  (Wheatley.  Proctor  on  the  Prayer  Book. 
Whytehead  on  the  Prayer  Book.)  But  there  is  no 
footprint  which  they  have  left  upon  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Let  us  not,  however,  forget  that  we  have  no 
Bible  evidence  that  Christians  in  apostolic  days 
built  churches  and  devoted  them  to  worship. 
No  text  of  the  Bible  clearly  proves  family  prayer 
to   be   a  Christian  duty.     No   line  of  the   Word 


143 

of  God  prescribes  the  gathering  of  children  in 
a  Sunday  school.  Not  a  proof-text  can  be  adduced 
for  the  use  of  instruments  of  music  in  Christian 
worship.  Yet  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
intelligent  believers  would  feel  that  Christianity 
was  losing  ground  in  the  world,  if  church  edifices 
were  no  longer  erected,  if  the  family  altar  were 
thrown  down,  if  Sunday  schools  were  to  shut 
their  doors,  and  if  no  organ  were  to  accompany 
sacred  song.  Why  do  we  value  these  things? 
Not  because  God's  word  prescribes  them.  But 
because  while  in  themselves  in  harmony  with  the 
spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  Christian  experience 
has  found  them  useful.  We  have  applied  to  them 
the  test  of  utility,  and  are  satisfied  with  the  result. 

On  precisely  the  same  basis  does  the  Reformed 
Episcopalian  place  the  Christian  Year.  It  has 
passed  through  the  fiery  crucible  of  at  least  four- 
teen centuries.  (Wheatley,  p.  212.  Whytehead's 
Key  to  the  Prayer  Book,  pp.  110,  111.)  It  has 
come  forth  like  silver  refined  in  the  fires.  What 
then,  is  the  value  of  the  prescribed  arrangement  of 
the  Christian  Year  ? 

It  constantly  preaches  Christ.  The  ancient 
Romans  used  to  say  that  every  road  in  the  vast 
empire  led  to  Rome.  So  does  every  one  of  these 
appointed  services  lead  to  the  atoning  Son  of  God. 
History  and  experience  are  witnesses  that  no 
canon  law  and  no  ecclesiastical  discipline,  can  ever 


144 

"build  walls  strong  enough  and  lofty  enough  to 
shut  out  false  ministers  and  teachers  of  error  from 
the  Church.  But  if  every  pulpit  in  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  were  to  be  filled  by  a  Judas,  be- 
traying the  Saviour,  if  every  minister  were  to 
preach  what  St.  Paul  calls  "another  Gospel,"  the 
services  of  the  Christian  Year  would  brand  him  as 
false,  and  contradict  his  utterances. 

Do  not  let  us  forget  that  the  order  and  system 
of  these  appointed  services,  are  calculated  to  build 
up  a  symmetrical  and  well  balanced  religion. 
Men  are  apt  to  be  like  the  lonely  trees  on  our  wind- 
swept prairies.  The  branches  of  the  cottonwood 
are  often  only  on  the  side  of  the  trunk  opposite  to 
the  source  of  the  prevailing  winds.  Christians 
are  prone  to  become  one-sided  in  their  growth. 
Ministers  frequently  allow  some  true  doctrine 
to  become  a  hobby,  absorbing  all  their  pulpit- 
teaching.  But  he  who  is  guided  by  the  Chris- 
tian Year,  finds  himself  led  to  give  to  each 
great  truth  its  due  proportion.  He  may  preach 
on  the  Resurrection  at  Christmas,  or  the  Cruci- 
fixion at  Whitsuntide,  or  tell  the  story  of  Christ's 
birth  at  Good  Friday— but  all  the  while,  the 
appointed  services  utter  their  rebuke.  And  if, 
through  all  the  year,  he  dwell  on  some  one 
favorite  theme — however  important  it  may  be — the 
Prayer  Book  rings  out  like  a  trumpet^  voicing  the 


145 

demand  of  the  people  for  instruction  in  the  whole, 
instead  of  a  part  of  Gospel  truth. 

Hence,  too,  the  Church  Year  is  an  additional 
security  of  the  lay  membership  of  the  Church, 
When  you  commit  your  spiritual  guidance  to  a 
pastor,  you  do  not  mean  to  become  a  passenger  in 
a  balloon,  driven  here  and  there  by  every  wind  of 
heaven.  You  mean  to  trust  yourself  to  his  guid- 
ance as  to  that  of  the  pilot  on  an  ocean  steamer, 
who  follows  day  by  day  the  instructions  of  his 
chart.  The  map  which  the  Christian  Year  marks 
out,  is  ever  open  to  the  examination  of  the  lay 
member  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  He 
has  a  right  to  demand  that  his  minister  shall  be 
guided  by  it. 

Last  of  all,  the  Church  Year  is  a  help  to  Christ 
tian  unity. 

A  hundred  years  ago,  outside  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  the  celebration  of  the  great  festivals  of 
the  Christian  Year  was  looked  upon  by  the  major- 
ity of  American  Protestants  as  a  relic  of  Roman 
superstition.  But  to  day,  Christmas,  Easter, Whit- 
sunday, even  Good  Friday  and  Ascension  Day, 
are  kept  with  appropriate  services  by  thousands  of 
evangelical  churches,  and  by  vast  numbers  of 
evangelical  Christians.  Some  of  our  leading  relig- 
ious papers,  with  no  Episcopal  or  liturgical  affilia- 
tions, have  strongly  urged  that  the  "week  of  prayer" 


146 

should  be  made  to  conform  in  date  with  the  fi  rst 
week  of  the  Lenten  season. 

Dr.  Charles  W.  Shields,  a  distinguished  clergy- 
man of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  a  paper  which 
has  evoked  the  deepest  and  most  wide-spread 
interest,  has  argued  that  "  to  restore  more  fully  the 
links  of  the  Christian  Year,  which  are  already  soci- 
ally and  legally  recognized  among  us,  and  to  let 
them  be  illustrated  by  the  epistles  and  gospels 
which  have  marked  their  circuit  for  centuries  past,'^ 
"would  be  a  long  step  in  the  direction  of  uniting  the 
Christian  Churches  of  the  United  States,  {Century 
Mag.,  Nov.,  1885.) 

Such  is  our  Christian  Year.  Eloquent  of  Christ 
alone,  purged  from  all  superstitious  honors  to 
saints  who  were  but  fallen  men,  building  up  Chris- 
tian character  in  symmetrical  proportion,  and  ever 
bringing  into  closer  fellowship  with  each  other,  all 
who  are  in  fellowship  with  Jesus^  it  claims  the 
love  and  intelligent  appreciation  of  every  Reformed 
Episcopalian.  May  we  so  use  it  here,  that  we  may 
be  better  fitted  for  that  Church  whv:)3e  years  are 
the  cycles  of  eternal  joy  I     Amen. 


THE     REFORMED     EPISCOPALIAN    AND 
HIS  DUTY  TO  HIS   OWN  CHURCH. 


''Walk  about  Zion,  and  go  round  about  her ;  tell 
the  towers  thereof.  3Iark  ye  well  her  bulwarla^^ 
consider  her  palaces ;  that  ye  may  tell  it  to  the 
generation  following  ^''^  Psalm  xlviii :  12,  13. 


It  is  natural  to  find  in  Mount  Zion  a  type  of 
Christ's  visible  Church.  It  was  the  centre  of  the 
Hebrew  worship.  There  every  religious  rite  was 
p2rformed  by  God's  appointed  priesthood.  There 
sacrifice  and  incense,  the  appeal  of  prayer  and  the 
gladness  of  praise  consecrated  and  hallowed  the 
chosen  seat  of  Israel's  God. 

We  surely  may  transfer  to  the  Christian  Church, 
where  "  a  royal  priesthood  "  of  all  true  believers 
offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  something  of  the 
honor  with  which  the  Jew  regarded  Zion.  That 
honor,  says  the  Psalmist,  demanded  a  survey  of 
the  holy  mountain.  It  only  required  that  God's 
people  should  know  how  glorious  their  seat  of  wor- 
ship was,  to  lead  them  to  feel  a  profound  love  and 
reverence  for  it. 

Above  all,  such  study  of  the  towers  and  palaces 

of  Zion,  would  enable  them  to  teach  their  children 

how  beautiful  and  holy  was  God's  house.     They 
(14T) 


148 

^were  to  "go  round  about  Zion,  that  they  might 
tell  it  to  the  generation  following."  With  a  kin- 
xcired  thought  concerning  our  own  Church,  I  enter 
upon  the  closing  sermon  of  tnis  course. 

I.  The  duty  of  the  Reformed  Episcopalian 

INVOLVES  AN  INTELLIGENT  ACQUAINTANCE  WITH  THE 
:PRINCIPLES  AND  METHODS  OF  IIIS  OWN  CllURCH. 

Membership  of  a  church  is  like  a  garment  which 
touches  one  at  every  possible  point  of  contact.  It 
.lias  to  do  with  every  department  of  our  life.  It  is 
■meant  to  influence  us  in  public  and  private.  It 
ought  to  control  our  daily  business  as  our  daily 
devotion.  It  should  have  a  place  in  our  work  and 
our  recreation.  It  belongs  to  our  relations  in  the 
family,  the  sanctuary  and  the  scene  of  our  every  day 
labor. 

The  world  has  surely  a  right  to  expect  that  we 
shall  grasp  with  a  thorough  comprehension  that 
'which  touches  our  life  at  such  a  multitude  of 
points. 

I  once  sat  beside  the  driver  of  a  California  stage 
-coach, as  we  rattled  down  a  pitch-dark  road  at  dead 
iinidnight.  We  were  in  the  heights  of  the  Sierra 
Nevada.  I  knew  that  the  narrow  highway  skirted 
the  edge  of  sheer  precipices,  and  made  sharp 
■curves,  where  the  least  mistake  meant  certain 
death.  Turning  to  my  companion,  1  asked  bow  it 
was  possible  for  him  to  find  his  way  along  such 
a,  path  at  such  an  hour.     The  gruft'   reply   was  a 


149 


question :  "  How  do  j^ou  find  your  way  about  your 
own  house  in  the  dark  ?" 

There  was  a  world  of  philosophy  in  that  rough 
answer.  It  meant  that  he  could  literally  feel  his 
way  on  that  wild  road,  because  as  familiar  with  it 
as  one  becomes  with  every  room  and  passage  of 
the  home  in  which  he  dwells. 

The  church  to  which  one  belongs,  is  his  home. 
A  Christian  who  is  iojnorant  of  his  own  church, 
ought  to  be  as  rare  as  the  man  who  knows  nothing 
of  the  house  in  which  he  dwells. 

The  reasons  which  demand  intelligent  acquaint- 
ance with  one's  own  branch  of  the  universal 
Church,  lie  upon  the  surface. 

One  of  tiiese  is,  that  thorough  knowledge  of  His 
own  household  of  faith,  will  always  tend  to  make 
the  Christian  a  better  member  of  the  whole  family 
of  Christ.  It  has  been  my  lot  on  several  different 
occasions  to  visit  frontier  outposts  of  our  army. 
One  fact  arrested  my  attention.  Every  cavalry- 
man was  a  better  soldier  because  devoted  to  his 
own  branch  of  the  service.  The  infantry  soldier 
stood  by  his  country's  flag  all  the  more  bravely, 
because  he  believed  in  infantry  organization  and 
tactics.  Nor  was  the  artilleryman  one  whit  be- 
hind in  military  discipline  and  courage,  because 
that  arm  of  the  service  was  in  his  eyes  the  most 
important  to  success.  But  each  soldier's  deep  at- 
tachment to   his   own   special    organization,    was 


based  on  the  fact  that  he  was  thoroughly  familiar 
with  its  details.  Such  intimate  acquaintance  with 
his  own  department  of  the  army,  did  not  lead  to  a 
want  of  broad  patriotism,  or  to  disloyalty  to  the 
flag  which  floated  over  all. 

A  man  may  have  a  blind,  fanatical  zeal  for  his 
own  church,  which  leads  him  to  look  on  all  other 
Christians  as  outside  ot  the  pale  of  salvation.  He 
may  magnify  his  own  branch  of  the  Church  Catho- 
lic, till  every  other  shall  appear  as  an  enemy  of  the 
cause.  But  such  a  Christian  is  the  product — not 
of  thorough  knowledge  of  his  own  church,  but  of 
ignorance  regarding  it.  The  proof  of  that  posi- 
tion is  readilj'  adduced  from  our  own  acquaintance 
with  religious  bigotry.  Take  the  Romanist 
who  narrows  the  scope  of  Christ's  salvation  to 
those  of  his  own  communion  ;  and  you  will  almost 
invariably  find  that  just  in  proportion  to  his  in- 
tense bigotry,  is  his  ignorance  of  his  own  Church 
in  its  history,  doctrines,  and  methods.  Intelligent 
study  of  tlie  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  will  only 
make  the  Reformed  Episcopalian  more  zealous  for 
the  cause  in  which  all  true  believers  are  united^ 
and  more  broad  and  comprehensive  in  his  charity 
toward  all  who  bear  his  Master's  name 

Then  too,  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  a  thorough 
acquaintance  with  one's  own  church,  is  like  an 
anchor  which  keeps  the  Christian  from  aimless 
drifting. 


151 

The  old  proverb,  "  A  rolling  stone  gathers  no 
moss,"  is  nowhere  more  applicable  than  in  the 
sphere  of  religion.  I  should  be  the  last  to  assail 
the  Christian  who  from  strong  conviction  that  he 
could  better  serve  Christ,  or  grow  in  grace,  by 
changing  his  church  relations,  withdraws  from 
one  communior  to  enter  another.  In  every  lead- 
ing denomination  are  laymen  and  ministers  who 
shine  as  lights,  and  hold  the  front  rank  in  earnest 
Christian  work,  whose  education  and  early  life  at- 
tached them  to  some  church  which  convictions  of 
duty  led  them  to  leave  for  another.  I  am  not 
speaking  of  such.  Our  country  owes  a  debt  ot 
gratitude  which  it  can  never  pay,  to  men  who  for- 
sook their  early  home  across  the  sea,  to  cast  their 
lot  with  the  people  of  tliis  great  Republic.  The 
West  has  been  developed  and  enriched  by  immigra- 
tion from  the  older  States.  On  the  same  principle 
every  branch  of  the  Church  is  under  inestimable 
obligation  to  those  who  have  entered  its  fold  from 
other  portions  of  Christ's  vast  household.  But 
immigration  is  one  thing.  Restless,  unreasoniniT 
roving  is  another.  In  religion,  as  in  national  life, 
there  are  immigrants,  and  there  are  more  trnmps 
I  know  one  individual  who,  in  the  twenty  five  years- 
of  mv  acquaintance  with  him,  lias  changed  his 
church  relations  from  one  denomination  to  an- 
other no  less  than  eight  times.  The  average 
duration   of  his  membership  of  any  one   commu- 


152 


nion,  is  but  a  fraction  over  three  3'ears.  Such  a. 
Christian  becomes  a  positive  injury  to  the  cause  of 
Christ.  He  wealiens  the  church  he  enters  more 
than  the  one  he  forsakes.  Above  all,  he  leads  the 
world  outside  to  sneer  at  the  want  of  any  deep 
conviction  underlying  his  church  relations.  Can 
you  conceive  of  such  a  man  as  thoroughly  grasp- 
ing the  truth  as  held  by  any  branch  of  the  Church  ? 
If  in  any  evangelical  communion  he  had  struck 
down  the  roots  of  a  real  study  into  its  principles 
and  spirit,  it  would  have  saved  the  Church  at  large 
from  contempt,  and  himself  from  a  life  like  that  of 
a  wandering  Bedouin. 

How  many  professing  Christians  too,  are  to  be 
found,  who  while  not  formally  severing  their  eccle- 
siastical relations,  yet  roam  here  and  there  from 
one  place  of  worship  to  another,  as  fancy  or  in- 
-clination  may  dictate.  Attracted  to  one  church  by 
the  music,  to  another  by  sensational  preaching,  or 
to  a  third  by  some  theatrical  ritualism,  they  add 
nothing  to  the  spiritual  strength  of  the  fold  to 
which  they  belong,  while  they  undermine  their  own 
relisfious  life.  Such  souls  can  no  more  build 
up  their  spiritual  strength,  than  a  man  can 
maintain  vigorous  health,  who  forsakes  the  plain 
and  wholesome  food  spread  upon  the  home  table, 
to  wander  from  restaurant  to  restaurant,  seek- 
ing unaccustomed  delicacies.  But  such  Chris- 
tians  are   never   to    be   found   in   the    class    who 


153 

honestly  endeavor  to  be  informed  as  to  the  princi- 
pies  of  their  own  church.  The  man  who  forms  aa 
intelligent  acquaintance  with  whatever  is  peculiar 
to  his  own  communion,  and  who  sincerely  tries  to 
la}'^  hold  of  its  doctrines  and  methods,  roots  him- 
self in  that  church  so  that  he  feels  his  personal 
responsibility  for  it,  and  kindles  in  his  heart  a  love 
for  its  worship,  which  no  mere  accident  of  music, 
or  the  style  of  the  preacher,  or  the  accessories  O' 
the  place  of  meeting,  can  affect. 

But  while  all  this  is  true  to  a  certain  extent,  of 
any  evangelical  Christian,  it  is  ten- fold  true  of  the 
Keformed  Episcopalian. 

For  this  Church  is  the  youngest  of  the  sister- 
hood of  evangelical  churches.  While  in  one  sense 
it  is  as  old  as  the  English  Reformation,  and  while 
it  justl}^  claims  to  be  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  as  founded  by  Bishop  White  and  his  co- 
laborers,  its  separate  existence  is  measured  by  only 
a  few  short  years.  It  came  into  being  in  a  period 
of  Christian  history  when  the  drift  of  religious 
movements  was  toward  union  rather  than  separa- 
tion. The  mere  fact  that  it  is  the  result  of  a 
secession  from  an  ancient  and  po^verful  communion, 
tends  to  create  prejudice  against  it.  The  Reformed 
Episcopalian  stands  in  the  attitude  of  one  who  is 
bound  to  give  satisfactory  reasons  for  his  position 
among  the  churches. 

Now  and  then,  I  am  approached  by  members  of 


154 


iny'~own  flock,  who  tell  me  that  in  their  intercourse 
with  others,  in  their  chance  acquaintance  formed 
in  time  of  summer  recreation,  and  in  their  corres- 
pondence even  with  those  who  hold  to  them  mere 
business  relations — they  are  asked  to  explain  pre- 
cisely the  nature  of  this  Church ;  how  it  differs 
from  that  out  of  which  it  sprang  ;  and  what  are  its 
doctrinal  positions.  And  only  too  often,  they  tell 
me  that  they  have  been  compelled  by  their  own 
ignorance  to  admit  their  inability  to  give  any  satis- 
fiictory  reply.  Yet  if  there  be  any  church  in  exist- 
ence whose  members  need  an  intelligent  under- 
standing of  its  principles,  it  is  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church. 

But  how  shall  our  own  people  obtain  such 
thorough  comprehension  of  their  own  doctrines 
and  methods  ? 

First  of  all,  by  a  searching  study  of  our  Booh  of 
Common  Prayer.  Ours  is  a  distinctively  liturgical 
Church.  Its  ministers  are  bound  by  their  ordina- 
tion promises  to  "  conform  to  the  worship  "  which 
is  prescribed  in  the  Prayer  Book.  And  within  the 
covers  of  that  formulary  of  public  devotion,  brief 
as  it  is,  can  be  found  the  whole  system  of  this 
Church.  The  vast  majority  of  all  classes  of  Epis- 
copalians use  a  Prayer  Book  as  they  do  their  Sun- 
day clothes.  It  is  a  book  simply  for  their  guid- 
ance in  worship  once  a  week.  Consequently  it  is 
never  opened  from  Sunday  to   Sunday.     It  is  this 


155 


simple  fact  which  explains  why  thousands  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  intensely  evangeli- 
cal, avowedly  low  church  in  their  sympathies,  and 
viewing  with  abhorrence  any  departure  from  Scrip- 
ture teaching,  have  been  perfectly  satisfied  to  regard 
their  own  Prayer  Book  as  next  to  the  Bible  in  their 
esteem  and  love.  In  that  book  are  services — like 
those  for  ordination  and  the  consecration  of  bishops, 
for  the  institution  of  a  rector  and  the  visitation  of 
the  sick,  which  are  so  rarely  witnessed  in  actual 
use,  that  multitudes  have  never  heard  them.  But 
who  carefully  studies  them  at  home  ?  They  may 
contain  the  seeds  and  germs  of  Romanism  ;  but 
these  are  unnoticed,  because  they  are  not  forced 
every  week  upon  the  attention  of  the  worshipper 
in  church. 

It  is  with  deep  conviction  that  I  venture  the 
statement,  that  if  the  earnest  and  spiritually- 
minded  laity  of  the  old  Church  were  to  take  up 
their  own  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  outside  of 
the  place  of  worship,  and  compare  its  teachings 
with  those  of  the  Bible,  it  would  lead  directly  and  in- 
evitably to  a  vast  exodus  from  that  communion  into 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Our  Prayer 
Book  courts  such  study  and  comparison. 

Some  of  you  have  crossed  the  Alps.  Have  you 
never  seen,  a  little  distance  from  your  road,  but 
diverging  from  it,  the  ancient  highway  now  de- 
serted, but  on  which  perhaps  the  old  Romans  were 


156 

wont  to  journey?  In  every  case  your  eye,  at  a 
single  glance,  took  in  the  cause  which  led  to  the 
change.  It  made  the  route  shorter,  or  it  straight- 
ened a  crooked  pathway,  or  it  avoided  some  peril- 
ous pass.  So  every  change  from  our  old  Prayer 
*  Book  which  has  been  made  in  that  with  which  we 
worship  to-day,  has  its  obvious  reason.  With 
John  the  Baptist  fidelity  to  Scripture,  it  has  made 
"  the  path  straight." 

I  plead  then,  with  every  Reformed  Episcopalian 
that  he  will  make  his  liturgy  something  more  than 
a  mere  directory  of  public  worship.  A  serious  pri- 
vate study  of  the  Prayer  Book  cannot  fail  to  fur- 
nish him  such  knowledge  of  his  own  Church  as  will 
put  it  in  his  power  to  answer  every  question  which 
honest  inquirers  may  make  as  to  the  principles  of 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 

Next  in  importance  as  a  source  of  information, 
stands  the  history  of  this  Church. 

Patriotic  Americans  who  lived  in  those  stirring 
times,  when  the  great  civil  war  shook  the  founda- 
tions of  our  country,  complain  that  there  is  a  dearth 
of  books  which  clearly  explain  the  causes  out  of 
which  that  tremendous  struggle  sprang.  They 
realize  that  the  rising  generation,  born  since  the 
war  was  ended,  are  uninstructed  in  the  great  prin- 
ciples which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  most 
momentous  events  in  our  national  life. 

A  kindred  difficulty  besets  the  Reformed  Epis- 


157 

copal  Church.  Its  real  history  dates  back  to  the 
English  Reformation.  Its  Prayer  Book  is,  in  its 
main  features,  as  old  as  the  reigu  of  Edward  the 
Sixth.  But  the  causes,  which,  working  in  the 
hearts  of  evangelical  Episcopalians,  produced  at 
last  a  separate  organization  in  the  3'ear  18T3,  is 
unknown  to  thousands  of  our  own  people. 

No  formal  history  of  this  Church  has  as  yet 
been  given  to  the  world.  But  the  materials  of 
such  a  record  are  within  the  reach  of  all.  In  the 
form  of  tracts  and  pamphlets  published  by  our  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Publication  Society,  and  in  the 
biography  of  Bishop  Cummins,  the  member  of  our 
Church  who  really  desires  to  be  informed  as  to 
what  this  Church  is,  and  why  it  exists,  can  find 
the  history  of  conscientious  struggles  which  re- 
sulted in  the  formation  of  this  communion.  Es- 
pecially do  I  commend  to  you  the  story  of  the  life 
of  him  whom  God  graciously  gave  to  us  as  our  first 
bishop.  A  purer  and  lovelier  life,  a  more  Christ- 
like fidelity  to  dut}'',  a  more  unselfish  sacrifice 
for  principle,  cannot  be  found  in  the  records  of 
"the  noble  army  of  martyrs." 

Such  is  the  first  duty  to  his  own  Church  resting 
on  every  Reformed  Episcopalian.  If  other  Chris- 
tians can  aff'ord  to  be  ignorant  of  the  principles 
and  methods  of  the  branch  of  Christ's  Church  to 
which  they  may  belong,  he  cannot.  The  world 
around  him,   the  religious  sentiment  of  the  nine- 


158 


teenth  century,  and  the  interests  of  his  own  com- 
munion imperatively  demand  that  he  shall  be  able 
to  "give  to  every  man  that  asketh,  a  reason  for 
the  hope  that  is  in  "  him. 

II.  The  duty  of  the  Reformed  Episcopalian 

INVOLVES  EARNEST  WORK  IN  THE  UPBUILDING  AND 
STRENGTHENING  OF  HIS  OWN    ChURCH. 

Faith  and  works  are  bound  together  by  a  liga- 
ment which  it  is  always  perilous  to  sever.  When 
Saul  of  Tarsus  was  stricken  to  earth  as  he  hurried 
along  the  Damascus  road,  he  recognized  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  the  One  who  spoke  from  the  skies.  It 
was  but  the  germ  of  faith.  Weak,  ignorant,  im- 
perfect, he  nevertheless  believed  that  the  once  per- 
secuted Galilean  was  the  ''  Lord."  But  how 
quickly  did  works  follow  in  the  track  of  his  faith  I 
He  cannot  conceive  of  believing  on  Christ,  with- 
out obeying  Christ.  Forthwith  he  cries,  "  Lord, 
what  wilt  Thou  have  me  to  do  ?"  From  that  day 
onward,  Saul's  question  has  been  repeated  by 
every  soul  which  has  truly  believed  on  Christ.  A 
living  faith  always  kindles  a  fire  which  blazes 
forth  in  fervent  desire  to  work  in  the  cause  of  the 
Saviour. 

But  all  Christian  experience  goes  to  show  that 
the  best  workers  for  the  Master  have  been  those 
who  gave  their  labor  along  the  lines  marked  out  by 
that  branch  of  the  Church  to  which  they  belonged. 

Such  an  assertion  may  involve  the  charge  of  nar 


159 

rowness  and  sectarian  bigotry.  But  a  moment's  seri- 
ous and  impartial  consideration  will  refute  the  cruel 
accusation.  There  is  a  noble  work  wliich  is  being 
done  by  instrumentalities  belonging  to  no  one 
branch  of  the  Christian  Church.  Union  move- 
ments, such  asi  the  Bible  Society,  the  Tract  Society, 
and,  above  all,  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, composed  of  evangelical  believers  of  every 
denomination,  are  the  glory  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. But  who  are  the  leaders  in  every  one  of 
these  vast  agencies  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  ? 
In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  you  will  find 
them  to  be  men  who  also  take  the  lead  in  all  the 
activities  of  the  particular  Church  to  which  they 
belong.  Where  you  find  a  Christian  so  needlessly 
broad  in  his  catholicity,  that  he  has  no  warm  love 
for  his  own  communion,  you  will  also  find  one  who 
does  no  real  or  valuable  service  in  any  union 
organization  for  the  evangelizing  of  the  world. 
But  that  is  only  the  negative  side  of  the  argument. 
There  is  a  positive  side.  History  and  experience 
are  concurring  witnesses  that  the  best  results  in 
Christian  work  have  been  accomplished  by  men 
who  were  bound  together  by  a  deep  attachment  to 
some  one  branch  of  the  great  Church  of  Christ. 
What  would  have  been  this  western  region  of  our 
country  but  for  the  pioneer  evangelization  of  the 
Methodist  Church?  Planted  on  this  continent 
after  every  other  great  denomination  had   a   foot- 


160 

hold,  it  numbers  to  day  two  millions  and  a  half  of 
members  in  the  United  States  and  Canada.  It  has 
done  a  work  for  the  newer  regions  of  our  land  for 
which  every  Christian  ought  to  be  devoutly  grate- 
ful. 

But  there  is  no  church  in  all  Christendom,  unless 
it  be  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  has  so  compact 
a  denominational  organization.  There  exists  no 
Protestant  communion  which  is  so  intensely 
devoted  to  working  on  its  own  denominational 
lines.  A  Methodist  is  a  Methodist  wherever  he 
goes.  He  is  bound  to  his  own  Church  by  ties 
which  attach  him  to  its  peculiar  methods.  No  body 
of  Christians  has  to  such  a  degree  the  quality  for 
which  our  English  tongue  has  no  expression,  but 
which  the  French  would  call  "  esprit  de  corps,'' 
It  is  because  they  move  as  one  solid  phalanx, 
strong  in  their  devotion  to  their  denominational 
work,  that  they  have  wrought  such  marvelous 
results  for  the  cause  of  universal  Christianity. 

Precisely  that  spirit  and  that  kind  of  work  is  the 
need  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  Our  dan- 
ger lies,  not  in  the  direction  of  any  sectarian  nar- 
rowness, but  rather  in  that  of  allowing  our  broad 
catholicity  to  lead  us  to  undervalue  our  own 
Church. 

To  the  Gulf  Stream  the  most  advanced  and  civi- 
lized countries  of  the  world  owe  the  fact  that  they 
are  not  icy  deserts,  uninhabitable  to  man.     But  it 


161 

the  heated  waters  of  the  Gulf  Stream  were  dif- 
fused through  the  whole  breadth  of  the  Atlantic, 
their  power  would  be  nothing.  One  with  the 
ocean,  yet  retaining  its  own  integrity  and  form  as 
a  mighty  river,  the  Gulf  Stream  moves  on  to  bless 
the  earth. 

Let  us  enter  heartily  into  every  union  move- 
ment for  the  spread  of  the  truth  of  Christ.  But 
let  it  be  our  aim  to  be  a  compact  and  organized 
body,  strong  in  individuality,  warming  a  cold 
world  because  warmed  ourselves  by  devotion  to 
the  special  trust  God  has  committed  to  us. 

Let  me  suggest  one  or  two  reasons  why  you 
should  love  and  work  for  your  own  Church. 

To  some  of  you  it  presents  a  claim  like  that 
which  one's  birthplace  has  upon  his  aflfection.  It 
was  in  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  in  its  clear 
presentation  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  that  you 
found  your  first  hope  in  Christ.  But  for  its  work 
you  would  be  still  in  the  darkness  where  you  once 
wandered. 

Do  you  remember  how  one  of  our  leading  scien- 
tific men,  lost  in  the  vast  Yellowstone  region  and 
chilled  by  the  nightly  cold  of  the  mountains,  saved 
his  life  by  a  magnifying  lens  which  chanced  to  be  in 
his  pocket  ?  It  was  the  sun's  rays  which  gave  the 
needed  fire.  But  it  was  the  lens  which  concentrated 
them.  Christ  alone  saved  you.  But  the  warmth  of 
His  truth  came  to  your  chilled  soul   through  the 


162 

concentrating  medium  of  the  Church  to  which  you 
belong.  Christ  deserves  your  first  love.  But  next 
to  Him  your  love  is  due  to  the  instrumentality  He 
used. 

But  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  is  entitled 
to  your  loving  and  earnest  work  because  of  what 
it  is  in  itself.  These  sermons  have  indeed  been 
Tain,  if  they  have  not  shown  you  that  your  own 
Church  is  above  all  things  else  a  Church  faithful  ta 
the  word  of  God.  It  knows  no  doctrine,  no  form 
of  service,  no  religious  practice,  which  cannot  bear 
the  test  of  the  plummet  and  line  of  the  Bible. 

Moreover,  while  this  Church  is  conservative  of 
all  that  antiquity  has  transmitted,  which  is  of  genu- 
ine spiritual  worth,  it  is  progressive  in  meeting  the 
real  wants  of  the  Christian  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
Liturgical,  jet  allowing  free  prayer  ;  Episcopal, 
yet  honoring  the  ministry  otherwise  ordained, 
retaining  a  communion  service  hallowed  by  long 
ages  of  Christian  use,  yet  inviting  to  the  Lord's 
table  "all  who  love  our  Divine  Lord  and  Saviour 
in  sincerity" — it  constitutes  the  once  **  missing 
link  "  in  the  unity  of  the  visible  Church. 

It  has  a  claim,  too,  upon  your  zeal  and  effort, 
because  its  special  work  is  one  which  no  other 
church  can  do. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, Canada,  and  the  United  States  is  a  vast, 
wealthy  and  powerful  organization.     Its  adherents 


163 

in  England  and  America  are  nu  nbered  by  millions. 
But  the  steady  drift  of  that  Church  for  fifty  years 
has  been  toward  a  false  and  unscriptural  view  of 
the  sacraments  and  the  ministry,  more  and  more 
nearly  approximating  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Its  public  worship  has  so  completely  changed,  that 
if  good  old  Bishop  White  were  to  return  to  earth, 
he  would  not  know  the  Church  which  he  founded. 
A  gaudy  ritualism  has  supplanted  the  simple 
yet  majestic  service  which  we  "  old-fashioned 
Episcopalians"  once  delighted  in.  To  complete 
the  sad  picture,  we  need  only  add  that  the  last 
General  Convention  of  that  Church,  narrowly 
escaped  a  vote  striking  out  from  the  title  page  of 
its  Prayer  Book  the  name  "  Protestant,"  while  sub- 
sequent events  clearly  indicate  that  such  an  oblit- 
eration of  all  which  suggests  the  English  Refor- 
mation, has  been  postponed  but  a  few  short  years. 
The  laity  alone  prevented  such  action  in  1886. 
But  the  laity  are  powerless  to  check  the  drift. 
Already  there  is  a  deep  unrest  among  members  of 
that  Church.  Where  can  they  go  ?  Some,  it 
is  true,  drift  into  other  evangelical  communions. 
But  they  rarely  find  themselves  at  home.  They 
want  an  Episcopal  Church.  They  crave  liturgical 
worship.  They  miss  the  ancient  order  of  the 
Christian  year.  Their  taste  cultivated  in  the  forms 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  revolts  against  a 
thousand    thinors  which    are    attractive    to    those 


164 


differently  trained.  The  number  of  such  laymen 
is  steadily  increasing.  Unhappy  in  tlieir  own 
Church  because  it  has  ceased  to  be  what  it  once 
was,  and  because  they  cannot  in  conscience  approve 
Romish  doctrine  in  the  pulpit,  and  Romish  wor- 
ship in  the  chancel,  such  souls  are  unable  to  find 
their  wants  met  in  any  non-liturgical  Church. 
There  are  thousands  who  would  hail  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  as  "  the  h.aven  where  they  would 
be,"  if  zeal  and  liberality  on  our  part  opened  our 
services  side  by  side  with  every  ritualistic  place  of 
worship  in  the  country.  But  restricted  as  we  have 
been  for  means  to  extend  our  Church,  and  hitherto 
without  a  seminary  for  the  training  of  our  young 
men  for  the  ministry,  such  la^'men  are  largely  igno- 
rant that  such  a  relief  exists  as  our  Church  would 
afford  them.  I  have  actually  known  a  lay  member 
of  the  old  Church  to  be  agreeably  surprised  to  find 
that  we  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  others 
who  supposed  that  we  worshipped  without  the  aid 
of  a  liturgy,  and  still  others  amazed  to  find  that 
our  clergy  wore  the  old  vestments  in  the  public  ser- 
vice. Surely  here  is  the  special  field  of  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  We  are  the  only 
organized  body  of  Christians  who  can  offer  to  them 
the  old-fashioned  Episcopal  Church,  which  our 
fathers  of  the  revolutionary  epoch  founded  We 
can  give  tliem  the  tiiree-fold  ministry,  the  historic 
episcopate,  the  liturgy  in  its  purity,  and  the  Church 


165 

year  with  its  orderly  teaching.  Our  old  friends 
may  scorn  our  aid  for  a  time,  but  the  day  is  surely 
coming  when  the  evangelical  laity  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  will  see  that  their  only  hope  is 
in  the  Church  which  we  offer  them. 

Do  any  of  you  feel  stirred  to  ask  how  you  can 
most  effectively  enlist  yourselves  in  work  for  this 
beloved  Church  ? 

Begin  at  home.  Realize  your  own  responsibility 
for  the  Church  to  which,  in  God's  sight,  you  sol- 
emnly gave  yourself  when  your  name  was  enrolled 
among  its  members.  Say  to  yourself,  '•'  This  is  the 
Church— not  of  my  bishop,  ray  pastor,  my  church- 
officers — but  of  myself.  It  is  my  Church.  God 
holds  me  responsible  for  the  work  to  be  done  by 
this  communion.  I  am  not  responsible  for  what 
the  other  churches  are  doing,  but  for  the  success 
and  usefulness  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church." 

Such  a  sense  of  responsibility  will  lead  you  first 
of  all,  to  hold  up  the  hands  of  your  pastor  by  a 
regular  attendance  on  your  own  appointed  place  of 
worship.  The  prevalent  habit  of  roving  from 
one  church  to  another  has  its  root  in  a  conscience 
blunted  to  a  profound  sense  of  Christian  duty. 
I  may  be  welcome  to  sit  down  at  my  neighbor's 
table.  I  may  find  there  highly-spiced  food.  But 
as  a  member    of  a    household,  I  am  deserting  the 


166 

place  which  belongs  to  me,  and  creating  a  gap  in 
the  family  circle  which  no  one  else  can  fill. 

Then,  too,  such  a  sense  of  my  responsibility, 
will  make  me  a  Reformed  Episcopalian  whether  at 
home  or  abroad.  When  passing  a  Sunday  in  some 
distant  city,  mj^  first  inquir}'-  will  be  not  where  I  may 
enjoy  the  best  music,  or  hear  the  most  eloquent 
preaching,  but  whether  there  is  there  a  band  of  Re- 
formed Episcopalians — however  small  in  numbers  or 
wealth— whom  I  may  encourage  by  my  presence.  I 
will  seek  out  the  minister,  and  give  him  the  God- 
speed of  my  fellow  communicants.  In  one  word, 
I  will  interest  myself  in  the  whole  Church  to 
which  I  belong.  Wherever  are  Reformed  Episco- 
palians, there  are  my  brothers  and  my  sisters. 
Such  interest  will  lead  me  to  take  the  one  religious 
paper  which  is  the  organ  of  our  Church.  I  will 
endeavor  to  be  informed  as  to  what  our  Church  is 
doing  outside  the  narrow  limits  of  my  own  parish. 
I  can  only  gain  such  information  in  the  columns 
of  the  Episcopal  Recorder. 

What  deep  interest,  too,  ought  every  Reformed 
Episcopalian  to  feel  in  the  gift  which 
God  has  led  one  member  of  our  Church  to  bestow 
upon  it — our  long  desired^  yet  long  deferred  bless- 
ing of  a  Theological  Seminary.  Through  twelve 
years  of  our  ecclesiastical  history,  we  were  com- 
pelled to  place  our  young  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry under  the  care  of  "  schools  of  the  prophets  '' 


167 

belonging  to  other  churches.  It  separated  them 
from  all  Episcopal  and  liturgical  influences.  It 
gave  them  a  training  in  no  way  fitting  them  for 
our  special  work. 

But  just  when  our  hope  was  dying  out  that  we 
should  ever  have  a  Theological  Seminary  of  our 
own,  God  led  one  member  of  our  Church  to  pro- 
vide such  a  school  with  noble  buildings  and 
splendid  site,  at  a  cost  of  nearly  a  quarter  of 
a  million  of  dollars.  Our  Seminary  needs  addi- 
tional endowments  of  professorships.  It  calls  on 
every  Reformed  Episcopalian  to  supplement  what 
one  Christian  woman  has  been  led  by  God's  grace 
to  do.  It  appeals  to  us  for  such  personal  interest 
in  its  work  as  shall  make  it  for  all  time  a  fountain 
of  blessing  to  our  entire  communion. 

This  sense  of  responsibility  will  lead  parents  to 
train  their  children  up  in  the  principles  and  the  ways 
of  their  own  Church.  All  honor  to  the  Sunday 
school  work.  No  man  shall  question  my  loyalty 
to  it.  But  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  we  allow  the  ^ 
children  to  substitute  attendance  on  the  Sunday 
school  for  worship  in  the  church,  then  we  are  per- 
verting the  Sunday  school  from  its  real  design.  If 
your  children  are  old  enough  to  be  enrolled  in  the 
Sunday  school,  they  are  old  enough  to  attend  one 
church  service  on  the  Sunday.  If  you  must  choose 
between  the  two,  I  unhesitatingly  say  that  the 
child  trained  from  liis  earliest  years  to  the  use  of 


168 

the  Prayer  Book,  and  encouraged  to  participate  in 
the  worship  it  provides,  will  more  surely  become 
an  intelligent  and  spiritually-minded  Christian, 
than  the  child  who  attends  a  Sunday  school,  and 
neglects  the  services  of  the  sanctuary. 

Last,  but  not  least,  such  a  sense  of  responsi- 
bility will  lead  us  to  liberality  in  giving,  and  con- 
stancy in  praying  for  our  Church. 

When  a  wealthy  Christian,  during  our  long 
years  of  commercial  distress  following  the  panic 
of  18*73,  was  asked  why  he  doubled  his  subscrip- 
tions to  religious  work,  he  answered,  "  Because 
the  times  are  so  hard.''  So  I  say  to  every 
Reformed  Episcopalian,  because  this  Church  is  so 
young,  and  so  poor,  and  so  scattered,  because  upon 
this  generation  rests  the  responsibility  and  the 
honor  of  laying  its  foundations  amidst  reproach 
and  difficulty,  therefore  it  has  a  double  claim  upon 
your  self-denying  liberality.  It  needs  your  gifts 
as  no  other  stronger,  older  and  richer  organization 
»  needs  the  silver  and  the  gold  of  its  members. 

For  the  very  same  reason  this  Church  appeals  to 
you  for  your  earnest  prayers  in  its  behalf  A 
Christian  parent  prays  for  that  child  who  is  in  the 
midst  of  peril,  with  an  intensity  beyond  all  his 
intercession  for  the  others  of  his  flock.  What 
sui)[)lications  from  secret  closet  and  family-altar 
shielded  as  with  the  white  wings  of  the  angels,  the 
fioldier-boy  in  the  fore-front  of  the  hottest  battle ! 


169 


But  this  young  Church,  with  a  life  measured  by 
only  fourtean  years,  is  in  the  heat  of  fierce  battle 
which  other  churches  hardly  know.  Misunder- 
stood by  other  evangelical  churches,  bitterly 
assailed  by  the  Church  out  of  which  it  came, 
upholding  the  Gospel  banner  against  ritualism  on 
the  one  hand,  and  a  loose  free  thinking  on  the 
other,  it  appeals  to  you  for  daily  remembrance  at 
the  throne. 

Let  no  difficulties  lead  you  to  despond.  Dis- 
couragement can  only  come  to  those  Reformed 
Episcopalians  who  shut  their  eyes  to  what  God  haa 
wrought. 

How  brief  a  space  in  history  is  fourteen  years  ! 
Across  its  track  my  memory  flies  to  that  scene 
where  seven  ministers  and  a  handful  of  laymen 
gathered  around  our  sainted  leader.  I  recall  the 
birth  of  a  Church  without  cne  organized  parish  or 
a  solitary  place  of  worship.  I  look  to  the  pres- 
ent, and  see  that  same  Church  rooted  in  American 
soil  from  ocean  to  ocean.  I  mark  its  parishes  in 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  stretching  from  Pu^et 
Sound  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  I  cross  the  ocean 
and  find  it  growing  in  strength  and  influence  in 
England  and  even  in  Scotland.  I  see  it  possessed 
of  real  property  amounting  to  millions  of  dollars. 
I  am  no  prophet ;  but  if  this  be  the  fruit  of  our 
work  in  fourteen  years,  what  shall  this  Church   be 


170 

when  a  century  shall  have  marked  the  story  of  its 
life! 

My  self-imposed  task  is  done.  It  has  been  a 
labor  of  love,  in  this  course  of  sermons,  to  lead  my 
hearers  to  "  walk  about  Zion  and  tell  the  towers 
thereof."  I  am  thankful  to  God  thus  to  have 
borne  my  spoken  testimony.  But  still  more  grate- 
ful am  I  to  know  that  these  words  of  mine  shall 
reach  beyond  those-who  hear  them,  and  outlive  my 
own  personal  ministry.  If  I  may  hope  that  in 
printed  form  they  shall  help  to  "  tell  the  genera- 
tion following,"  the  story  of  the  birth  and  early 
years  of  this  beloved  Church,  and  if,  when  my 
tongue  is  still,  they  shall  aid  to  make  known 
"  what  Reformed  Episcopalians  believe  " — I  can 
joyfully  say,  "  Now,  Lord,  lettest  Thou  Thy  ser- 
vant depart  in  peace." 


APPBNDIX, 


A.— Page  23. 


The  leading  advocate  of  the  view  here  referred  to, 
that  Baptism  produces  a  regeneration  totally  distinct 
from  any  moral  and  spiritual  change,  is  Bishop  Hobart. 
His  sermons  on  this  topic  are  very  emphatic  in  repudi- 
ating the  idea  that  any  change  of  heart  and  nature  is 
produced  by  the  act  of  Baptism.  He  was,  however,  too 
honest  not  to  admit  that  in  this  position  he  was  out  of 
accord  with  the  drift  of  the  teaching  of  his  own  High 
Church  party  in  the  English  Church.  He  speaks  of 
their  "want  of  precision,"  and  adds,  "Among  the 
writers  who  have  fallen  into  this  inaccuracy  of  lan- 
guage, are  the  two  celebrated  and  eloquent  preachers. 
Dr.  Barrow  and  Bishop  Tillotson."  Hobart 's  Works, 
vol.  ii :  p.  466, 

Bishop  Hobart 's  view  is  most  clearly  expressed  in  his 
own  language; — "  As  St.  Paul  saith, '  By  one  Spirit  we 
are  all  baptized  into  one  Body.'  So  that  in  the  very  act 
of  baptizing,  the  Spirit  unites  us  unto  Christ,  and 
makes  us  members  of  His  body ;  and  if  of  His  body,  then 
of  His  Church  and  Kingdom,  that  being  all  of  His  body. 
And  therefore  all  who  are  rightly  baptized  with  water, 
being  at  the  same  time  also  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  so  born  both  of  the  v/ater  and  the  Spirit, 
they  are  ipso  facto  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  God 
established  upon  earth ;  and  if  it  be  not  their  own  fault, 
(171) 


172 


will  as  certainly  attain  to  that  which  is  in  heaven.  It 
is  much  to  be  lamented  that  many  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England  have  fallen  into  the  modern. error,  which 
originated  in  the  Calvinistic  school,  of  applying  the 
word  regeneration  to  denote  the  work  of  grace  on  the 
heart,  the  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  forming 
holy  affections  in  the  soul,  and  in  leading  us  to  newness 
of  life.  This  most  important  and  essential  change, 
which  in  Scriptural  and  primitive  language  is  termed 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost — renovation  —  many 
excellent  and  orthodox  divines  of  our  Church,  follow- 
ing unfortunately  the  fashion  of  the  times,  style  reyene- 

Bishop  Alfred  Lee  in  his  little  work  on  Baptism,  in 
which  he  endeavors  to  establish  the  hypothetical  theory 
of  regeneration,  alludes  to  this  language  of  Bishop 
Hobart,  and  comparing  it  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostle  John  in  his  first  epistle  (I  Jolm^ii :  29;  iii :  9-14; 
iv:  7;  v:  1-18),  pertinently  asks,  "How  came  the 
Apostle  John  to  fall  into  this  modern  error  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic school  ?" 

Bishop  Hobart's  view  gained  wide  acceptance  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  in  this  country,  but  is 
now  well-nigh  given  up  as  untenable  by  the  majority  of 
the  Clergy  of  that  Church. 

In  one  of  the  more  recent  High  Church  works  upon 
this  subject,  that  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  of  Nashotah 
Theological  Seminary,  I  have  been  unable  so  much  as 
to  find  an  allusion  to  it,  although  the  lack  of  an  index 
of  topics  may  have  led  me  to  my  failure  to  discover  such 
notice. 


173 


B.— Page  23. 

"  Goode  on  Baptism,"  is  a  work  of  profound  erudi- 
tion, and  one  which  has  been  the  main  reliance  of  those 
Evangelical  teachers  of  the  Church  of  England  who 
hold  to  the  so-called  "  charitable  theory  "  of  Baptism. 
But  it  is  worth  noticing  that  Mr.  Goode  himself  feels 
the  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  which  attend  his 
explanations  of  the  service.  He  says  (p.  468),  "  The 
mistakes  and  misconstructions  to  which  this  principle 
has  led  would  probably  be  now  considered  as  affording 
strong  reasons  against  it.  My  own  view  would  even  in 
theory,  apart  from  the  experience  of  results,  be  adverse 
to  the  use  of  such  language." 

"  Fisher  on  the  Prayer-Book,"— a  treatise  of  which 
the  late  Bishop  Phillpotts  of  Exeter,  so  famous  in  the 
well-known  Gorham  case,  says,  "It  is  the  work  of  one 
who  is  a  scholar,  r.  lawyer,  a  logician,  and  a  Christian 
gentleman," — thus  comments  upon  the  generally-ac- 
cepted Baptismal  theory  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britian  :  ' '  The  Charitable  Hypothesis,  as  applied 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Baptismal  Service,  involves 
nothing  less  than  an  obvious  violation  of  the  most  in- 
dispensable rules  of  grammar  and  of  logic.  It  does 
not  consist,  as  in  the  case  of  the  oft-quoted  passage, 
'  This  is  my  Body,'  in  the  mere  substitution  of  a  meta- 
phorical instead  of  a  literal  rendering  of  a  term ;  but 
rather  in  the  admission  of  a  non-natural  in  the  place  of 
the  natural  interpretation  of  an  entire  proposition.  As 
to  the  natural  sense  of  the  declaration, '  This  child  is 
regenerate,'  there  can  be  surely  but  one  opinion.    We 


174 

shall  search  in  vain  for  any  rule  of  logical  or  grammati- 
cal interpretation,  to  justify  the  assumption,  that  by 
such  an  expression  room  is  left  for  doubt  or  contingency. 
The  assertion  of  the  infant's  regeneracy  is  absolute, 
positive  and  unconditional.  Whatever  be  the  meaning 
attached  to  either  of  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  and 
whatever  be  the  precise  theological  interpretation  of 
the  word  '  regenerate,'  the  substance  of  the  proposition 
itself  still  remains  essentially  the  same.  It  is  still  un- 
deniably categorical ;  so  that  to  interpret  it  hypotheti- 
cally,  is  to  alter  its  very  essence,  and  mvolves  nothing 
less  than  a  positive  contradiction  of  a  singularly  plain 
and  luminous  statement.  .  .  .  The  question  before 
us,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  a  question  not  of  things, 
but  of  words.  The  point  to  be  ascertained  is  not 
whether,  in  the  case  supposed,  a  '  charitable'  hope  may 
reasonably  be  entertained;  but  whether  such  hope  is 
properly  expressed  by  the  phraseology  employed  in  the 
service.  These  are  two  perfectly  distinct  subjects  of 
inquiry.  And  what,  it  may  reasonably  be  -asked,  can 
the  '  judgment,'  even  of  the  most  charitable  expectation^ 
have  to  do  with  a  case  where  nothing  but  the  most  ab- 
solute certainty  can  justify  the  phraseology  employed  ?" 


C— Page  82. 

In  Chapin's  "  Primitive  Church,"  pp.  407-409,  a  bold 
and  seemingly  authoritative  denial  is  given  to  the  re- 
cognized fact  of  history  that  the  English  Church, down 
to  the  period  of  the  Stuart  restoration,  received  as  min- 
isters in  its  parishes,  clergymen  who  had  no  other  than 
Presbyterial  ordination.   It  seems  necessary,  therefore, 


175 

to  give  the  plain  historic^ round  for  the  statement  on 
page  82. 

Keble  is  certainly  one  whose  authority  ought  to  be  re- 
spected by  the  highest  advocates  of  the  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession. Yet  he  writes  (See  the  preface  to  Hooker,  p. 
38),  ''  For  nearly  up  to  the  time  when  he  (Hooker) 
wrote,  numbers  liad  been  admitted  to  the  ministry  of 
the  Church  of  England,  with  no  better  than  Presby- 
terian ordination ;  and  it  appears  by  Traver's  Supplica- 
tion to  the  Council,  that  such  was  the  construction  not 
uncommonly  put  upon  the  statute  of  the  13th  of  Eliza- 
beth, permitting  those  who  had  received  orders  in  any 
other  form  than  that  of  the  English  Service  Book,  on 
giving  certain  securities,  to  exercise  their  calling  in 
England.*' 

Let  us  listen  to  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Burnet, 
"  Another  point  was  fixed  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
which  was  more  at  large  formerly ;  those  w^ho  came  to 
England  from  the  foreign  Churches  had  not  been  re- 
quired to  be  ordained  among  us;  but  now  all,  that  had 
not  Episcopal  ordination,  were  made  incapable  of  hold- 
ing any  ecclesiastical  benefice."  (Burnet's  Hist,  of  his 
own  Times,  vol.  i:  p.  183.) 

Strype's  Life  of  Archbishop  Grindal  (quoted  in  Goods 
on  Orders),  bears  the  most  unequivocal  evidence  on  this 
point.  It  gives  the  exact  language  of  the  commission 
given  by  Grindal  to  John  Morrison,  a  minister  ordained 
by  Presbyterial  hands  in  Scotland,  permitting  him  to 
exercise  his  office  in  the  English  Church.  It  runs  as 
follows:  "Since  you,  the  aforesaid  John  Morrison, 
about  five  years  past,  in  the  town  of  Garvet,  in  the 
county  of  Lothian  and  kingdom  of  Scotland,  were  ad- 
mitted and  ordained  to  sacred  orders  and  the  holy 
ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according  to  the 


176 

laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Eeformed  Church  of 
Scotland  ...  we  therefore  as  much  as  lies  in  us, 
and  as  by  right  we  may,  approving  and  ratifying  the 
form  of  your  ordination  and  preferment  done  in  such, 
manner  as  aforesaid,  grant  to  you  a  license  and  faculty, 
with  the  consent  and  express  command  of  the  most 
Eeverend  Father  in  Christ,  the  Lord  Edmund,  by  the 
Divine  Providence  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  to  us 
signified,  that  in  such  ordeiis  by  you  taken,  you  may  and 
have  power  in  any  convenient  places  in  and  throughout 
the  whole  province  of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine 
offices,  to  minister  the  sacraments,"  &c. 

John  Cosin,  Bishop  of  Durham,  ought  to  be  a  witness 
to  whose  testimony  no  high  churchman  could  take  ex- 
ception. He  was  the  friend  of  Archbishop  Laud,  and 
was  considered  as  belonging  to  the  most  extreme  fac- 
tion of  the  party  which  Laud  represented.  In  a  letter 
written  by  him  from  Paris,  where  he  had  been  driven 
during  the  Parliamentary  regime  in  England,  he  says, 
*'  Therefore,  if  at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in 
these  Erench  churches,  came  to  incorporate  himself  in 
ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge  or  cure  of  souls 
among  us  in  the  Church  of  England  (as  I  have  known 
some  of  them  to  have  done  so  of  late,  and  can  instance 
in  many  others  before  my  time)  our  bishops  did  not  re- 
ordain  him  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as 
they  must  have  done  if  his  former  ordination  here  in 
France  had  been  void.  JVor  did  our  laws  require  mure 
of  him  than  to  dedare  his  public  consent  to  the  religion 
received  among  us,  and  to  subscribe  the  articles  estab- 
lished.''^ 

William  Fleetwood,  Bishop  first  of  St.  Asaph,  and 
afterward  of  Ely,  belongs  to  the  period  of  the  Kevolu- 
tion  which  placed  William  of  Orange  on  the  throne. 


177 

But  as  he  was  born  during  the  Cromwellian  supremacy, 
and  received  his  education  during  the  Carolan  reigns, 
he  is  a  most  important  witness  as  to  the  practice  pre- 
vailing in  England  while  the  Stuart  kings  were  assimi- 
lating the  English  Church  to  that  of  Rome.  He  says, 
in  his  "  Judgment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  case  of 
Lay-Baptism,"  "We  had  many  ministers  from  Scot- 
land, from  Prance,  and  from  the  Low  Countries,  wha 
were  ordained  by  presbyters  only,  and  not  bishops,  and 
■  they  were  instituted  into  benefices  with  cure,  and  yet 
were  never  re-ordained,  but  only  subscribed  the  ar- 
ticles.*' 

As  Mr.  Goode,  to  whose  unanswerable  work  on  the 
Orders  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  am  indebted  for 
the  most  of  the  above  quotations,  has  well  said,  "If 
these  cases  do  not  prove  that  at  least,  our  Church 
has  never  disowned  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of 
the  Scotch  and  foreign  non-episcopal  Churches,  and 
•  that  her  practice  till  the  Restoration  was  to  recognize 
their  validity,  nothing  would  do  so." 

The  Rev.  J.  B.  Marsden  is  a  well  known  and  volum- 
inous writer  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  his  History 
of  the  Early  Puritans,  a  work  of  vast  research,  he 
says,  speaking  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  (pp.  231-235), 

"  Hitherto  Episcopal  ordination  had  not  been  con- 
sidered as  of  the  essence  of  the  ministerial  commission; 
indeed  there  are  several  remarkable  instances  in  which 
Presbyterian  ministers  were  not  only  beneficed  in  the 
Church  of  England,  but  enjoyed  its  distinctions,  and 
filled  some  of  its  highest  posts.  The  case  of  Whitting- 
ham.  Dean  of  Durham,  is  well  known.  He  was  pre- 
sented to  the  deanery  soon  after  Elizabeth's  accession, 
in  1563,  having  received  orders  from  the  Reformed 
■Church  at  Geneva,  in  the  Presbyterian  manner.    It 


178 

does  not  appear  that  his  want  of  Episcopal  ordination 
would  have  rendered  him  obnoxious,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  zeal  with  which  he  espoused  the  Puritan  opinions- 
on  the  subject  of  the  vestments.  At  length  in  1577, 
Sandys,  Archbishop  of  York,  cited  him  upon  several 
charges,  the  chief  of  which  was  his  Genevan  ordination. 
Whittingham  however,  asserted  the  rights  of  the  church 
at  Durham,  and  challenged  the  Archbishop's  power  to 
interfere.  He  then  made  his  appeal  to  the  queen,  who 
directed  a  commission  to  hear  and  determine  the  objec- 
tions alleged  against  him.  The  president  was  Hutton,. 
Dean  of  York,  who  expressed  his  pieference  for  Presby- 
terian rather  than  Romish  orders,  in  strong  language* 
*  The  Dean,'  he  said,  'was  ordained  in  better  sort  than 
even  the  Archbishop  himself.'  Sandys  had  sufficient 
influence  to  obtain  another  commission,  and  of  this  the 
lord  president  was  a  member.  When  the  question  of 
his  ordination  had  been  argued,  the  lord  president  ex- 
claimed, '  1  cannot  agree  to  deprive  him  for  that  cause 
alone;  thii,' he  said,  'would  be  ill  taken  by  all  the 
godly  both  at  home  and  abroad  ;  that  We  allow  of  popish 
massing  priests  in  our  ministry,  and  disallow  of  minis- 
ters made  in  a  reformed  church.'  The  commission  was 
again  adjourned,  and  here  the  business  dropped,  for  the 
next  year  the  Dean  of  Durham  died 

"  The  range  within  which  ordination  was  considered 
valid  in  the  Church  of  England  in  the  age  succeeding- 
the  Reformation,  is  shown  more  strongly  in  the  case  of 
Travers,  Hooker's  celebrated  coadjutor  at  the  Temple* 
It  is  uncertain  whether  Travers  had  received  deacon's 
orders  according  to  the  Church  of  England  (for  he  had 
a  divinity  degree  from  Cambridge),  but  he  was  member 
from  the  first  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  Wands- 
worth,   Going  abroad,   he  was  certainly   ordained  9. 


179 

presbyter  at  Antwerp,  by  the  Synod  there  in  1578.  Yet 
we  find  him  associated  with  Hooker,  as  preacher  at 
the  Temple,  in  1592.  During  this  long  interval  then, 
of  fourteen  years,' his  Presbyterian  orders  had  been  al- 
lowed. He  was  also  private  tutor  in  the  family  of  Lord 
Treasurer  Cecil,  When  at  length  silenced  by  Whitgift, 
it  was  objected  to  him,  first,  that  he  was  not  a  lawfully 
ordained  minister  of  the  Church  of  England;  secondly, 
that  he  preached  without  a  license ;  thirdly,  that  he  had 
violated  discipline  and  decency  by  his  public  refutation  of 
what  Hooker,  his  superior  in  the  Church,  had  advanced 
from  the  same  pulpit  upon  the  same  day.  Had  the 
first  ground  been  felt  by  his  opponents  to  be  impregna- 
ble, the  other  charges  would  probably  have  been 
omitted,  and  Travers  would  have  been  dismissed,  no 
doubt,  in  a  summary  way.  But  it  would  seem  that  the 
stress  was  laid  chiefly  on  the  two  latter  articles  ;  and, 
indeed  Travers  was  prepared  with  an  answer  to  the 
first,  and  with  an  answer  which  he  did  not  fail  to  use. 
An  act  had  passed  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  under  which  he  was  securely  sheltered.  It 
recognizes  the  validity  of  foreign  orders ;  and  conveys 
to  us  historical  evidence  that  ministers  ordained  by 
Presbyterian  synods  were  at  that  time  beneficed  in  the 
Church  of  England,  It  was  sufficient  thac  the  con- 
forming minister  should  declare  his  assent,  and  sub- 
scribe to  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Travers,  in  his  petition  to  the  privy  council,  pleads 
the  force  of  this  statute,  and  declares  that  many  Scot- 
tish ministers  were  then  holding  benefices  in  England 
beneath  its  sanction." 

There  appears  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  bold  as- 
sertion of  Travers  was  denied,  as  it  certainly  would 
have  been,  if  capable  of  successful  refutation.  Nothing 


180 


then  can  be  clearer  than  the  plain  fact  of  history,  that 
at  the  time  of  this  celebrated  trial, ''  many  Scottish  min- 
isters,'^^ having  no  other  than  presbyterial  orders,  were 
holding  benefices  in  the  Clmrch  of  England,  under  the 
protection  of  the  law  to  which  Travers  himself  ap- 
pealed 

Tiie  disingenuousness,  to  call  it  by  no  severer  term, 
of  the  advocates  of  extreme  high  church  views,  is  seen 
in  the  attempt  of  Chapin  (Primitive  Church,  pp.  407, 
408)  to  get  rid  of  the  clear  testimony  of  history.  Allud- 
ing to  the  act  of  the  thirteenth  of  Elizabeth,  he  says, 
''  The  first  section  enacts  that  every  minister  under  the 
degree  of  Bishop,  who  had  received  ordination  or  con- 
secration hy  any  other  form  than  that  prescribed  hy  the 
Ordinal  of  Edivard  VI.  (the  italics  are  Dr.  Chapin's), 
should,  in  a  certain  limited  time,  subscribe  to  the  arti- 
cles of  religion,  confessions,  etc."  The  obvious  con- 
clusion which  Dr.  Chapin  meant  his  reader  to  draw 
from  the  statement  which  he  so  strongly  emphasizes  by 
italics,  is  that  this  provision  was  intended  to  meet  the 
case  of  men  ordained  in  the  Church  of  England,  by 
some  other  or  later  form  than  that  prescribed  by  the 
Ordinal  of  Edward  VI.  Thus  he  would  escape  the 
natural  inference  that  it  w^as  intended  to  meet  the  case 
of  the  "many"  Presbyterian  ministers  to  whom  Travers 
refers.  But  while  italicizing  this  clause  of  the  law,  Dr. 
Chapin  deliberately  omits  the  rest  of  the  language, 
which  makes  the  whole  clause  to  read,  "  any  other  form 
of  institution,  consecration,  or  ordering,  than  the  form 
set  forth  by  ])arliament  in  the  time  of  the  late  king  of 
most  worthy  memory.  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  or  now 
used  in  the  reign  of  our  most  gracious  sovereign  lady.'''' 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  the  entire 
clause  was  meant  to  allow  ministers  ordained  by  some 


181 

other  form  thayi  that  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  hold 
livings,  provided  they  should  subscribe  to  the  Articles. 

But  the  want  of  fair  dealing  with  historic  facts,  on 
the  part  of  Dr.  Chapin,  becomes  more  inexcusable  as 
he  proceeds.  In  .speaking  of  the  subscription  required 
by  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  he  says,  "  One  of  the  things 
they  were  thus  required  to  sign  was  the  Preface  to  the 
Ordinal."  This  is  a  gratuitous  assertion,  for  which 
ihere  is  not  only  no  historic  authority,  but  which  is  in 
direct  contradiction  of  the  statute  itself.  Its  language 
is,  "subscribe  to  all  articles  of  religion  ichich  only  con- 
cern the  true  Christian  faith,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sac- 
raments, comprised  in  a  book  intituled  Articles, ^^  etc.  I 
have  searched  in  vain  the  records  of  tlie  Elizabethan 
period  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  find  any  proof  of 
the  statement  that  the  book  'intituled  Articles,"  in- 
cluded the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal.  A  reference  to  the 
Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England  reveals  the 
*'book  intituled  Articles.''  appended  to  the  Liturgy, 
as  an  addendum,  precisely  as  it  was  adopted  by  parlia- 
ment  in  the  year  1562.  It  in  no  way  includes  or  even 
refers  to  the  Preface  of  the  Ordinal. 

At  the  risk  of  enlarging  this  appendix  beyond  my 
original  intention,  T  quote  in  full  the  statute  of  Eliza- 
beth, which  Dr.  Chapm  so  shamefully  garbles  to  suit 
the  purposes  of  the  high  Church  party=  It  is  given  by 
Marsden,  p.  234, 

'•'Anno  xiiL  Regina  Elizabetha:  A.  D.  1570;  chap. 
12  —An  Act  for  the  ministers  of  churches  to  be  of  sound 
leligion.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  authority  of  this  present 
parliament,  that  any  person  under  the  degree  of  a  bishop, 
which  doth  or  shall  pretend  to  be  a  priest  or  minister 
of  God's  holy  words  and  sacraments,  by  reason  of  any 
other  form  of  institution,  consecration,  or  ordering, 


lo2 


than  the  form  set  forth  by  parliament  in  the  time  of 
the  late  king  of  most  worthy  memory,  King  Edward 
Yl,  or  now  used  in  the  reign  of  our  most  gracious  sov- 
ereign lady,  before  the  feast  of  the  nativity  of  Christ 
next  following,  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop,  or 
guardian  of  the  spiritualities  of  some  one  diocese  where 
he  hath  or  shall  have  ecclesiastical  living,  declare 
his  assent,  and  subscribe  to  all  articles  of  religion  which 
only  concern  the  confession  of  the  true  Christian  faith^ 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  comprised  in  a  book 
imprinted  and  intituled,  Articles,  whereupon  it  was 
agreed  by  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  both  prov- 
inces, and  the  whole  clergy  in  convocation  holden  at 
London  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  God  one  thousand  five 
hundred  and  sixty-two,  according  to  the  computation 
of  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  avoiding  of  diversi- 
ties of  opinions,  and  for  the  establishing  consent  touch- 
ing true  religion  put  forth  by  the  queen's  authority ;  and 
shall  bring  from  such  bishop  or  guardian  of  spirituali- 
ties, in  writing,  under  his  seal  authentick,  a  testimonial 
of  such  assent  and  subscription ;  and  openly  on  some 
►Sunday,  in  time  of  public  service  before  noon,  in  every 
church  where  by  reason  of  any  ecclesiastical  living  be 
ought  to  attend,  read  both  the  said  testimonial,  and 
the  said  articles;  upon  pain  that  every  such  person 
which  shall  not  before  the  said  feast,  do  as  above  ap- 
pointed, shall  be  ipso  facto  deprived,  and  all  his  eccle- 
siastical promotions  shall  be  void,  as  if  he  then  were 
naturally  dead." 

Archbishop  Whitgift  figures  largely  in  the  contro- 
versy which  arose  regarding  Travers,  alluded  to  above. 
That  he  was  a  man  of  harsh  spirit  and  narrow  views^ 
is  very  evident  from  his  bitterness  toward  the  Puritans. 


lb 


Q 


Yet  the  equal  narrowness  of  that  faction  in  the  Eliza-^ 
bethan  Church  of  England,  and  their  petty  insistence 
«pon  trifling  matters,  alford  much  excuse  for  the  tem> 
per  which  Whitgift  manifested  toward  them.  But 
how  far,  in  spite  of  his  intense  dislike  of  tile  Presbyte- 
rians, he  was  from  the  position  of  the  modern  High 
Churchman  upon  the  question  of  the  necessity  of  Epis- 
copal ordination,  may  be  judged  from  the  following 
extract  from  his  works.  It  is  to  be  found  in  his  defence 
of  Episcopacy  against  Cartwright,  the  Puritan  cham- 
pion: 

"  But  to  be  short,  I  confess  that  in  a  church  collected 
together  in  one  place,  and  at  liberty,  government  is^ 
necessary  in  the  second  kind  of  necessity,  hut  that  any 
one  kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the 
Church  cannot  he  saved,  or  that  it  cannot  he  altered  into 
some  other  kind  thought  to  he  more  expedieyit,  I  utterly 
deny.  And  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to  do,  be  these. 
The  first  is  because  1  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect 
kind  of  government  prescribed  or  commanded  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Church  of  -Christ.  ...  So  that 
notwithstanding  government,  or  some  kind  of  govern- 
ment, may  be  a  part  of  the  Church,  touching  the  out- 
ward form  and  perfection  of  it,  yet  it  is  not  such  a  part 
of  the  essence  and  heing,  hut  that  it  may  he  the  Church  of 
Christ  without  this  or  that  kind  of  government,  and  there- 
fore the  kind  of  government  of  the  Church  is  not  neces- 
sary unto  salvation.  (Whitgift's  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  184.)'^ 


lu 


D.— Page  no. 

The  statement  that  the  consecrations  of  Bishops 
^Vhite  and  Piovoost  was  on  the  basis  of  the  Prayer 
33ook  of  1785,  was  asserted  in  a  sermon  preached  by  the 
author  of  this  little  work  some  years  ago,  and  subse- 
quently published  by  request.  The  paper  known  as 
The  Churchman,  in  a  review  of  this  discourse,  took 
occasion  to  deny  that  the  Prayer  Book  of  1785  was  the 
basis  on  which  the  historic  succession  was  secured  to 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
and  added  that  ''  any  tyro  in  ecclesiastical  history  " 
could  have  corrected  such  a  blunder.  I  have  therefore 
thought  fit  to  give  in  this  appendix  the  following  lu- 
minous statement  of  the  historical  facts  in  the  case, 
xjollated  by  my  brother,  the  Eev.  Mason  Gallagher, 
J).  D.,  whose  kindness  in  its  preparation  specially  for 
this  appendix,  has  added  to  the  many  obligations  of  a 
life-long  friendship. 

The  Prayer  Book  of  1785,  and  the  Historical 
Episcopate.    By  Rev.  Mason  Gallager,  D.  D. 

That  the  "  Historical  Episcopate"  was  conveyed  by 
the  Church  of  England,  and  received  on  the  basis  of  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1785,  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  Slates,  is  clearly  seen  in  the  Journals  of 
the  Conventions  of  1785  and  '86,  as  published  by  Bioren, 
Philadelphia,  1817. 

Prom  these  Journals  we  quote  : 

"AV^ednesday  28th  of  September,  1785.  On  motion 
resolved,  that  a  Comniittee  be  appointed  ...  to 
consider  of  and  report  such  alterations  in  the  Liturgy, 
as  shall  render  it  consistent  with  the  American  Revo- 
lution, and  the  Constitutions  of  the  respective  States ; 


18.3 


.  .  .  that  a  Committee  be  appointed  ...  to  pre- 
pare and  report  a  draft  of  g-n  Ecclesiastical  Constitution 
for  the  P.  E.  Church,  and  .  .  .  that  the  preparing 
of  the  necessary  and  proposed  alterations  be  referred  to 
said  Committee. 

*'  Friday,  80th.  Kesolved  that  the  Committee  for 
revising  and  altering  the  Liturgy,  etc,  do  also  prepare- 
and  report  a  plain  for  obtaining  the  Consecration  of 
Bishops,  together  with  an  address  to  the  Most  Rev- 
erend the  Archbishop,  and  the  Reverend  the  Bishops 
of  the  Church  of  England  for  that  purpose. 

"  Tuesday,  October  4th.  Convention  met  pursuant 
to  adjournment.  Ordered  that  the  consideration  of  the 
general  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  be  resumed,  and 
that  the  same  be  read  and  considered  by  paragraphs ; 
which  being  done,  was  considered  by  paragraphs,  and 
the  blanks  filled  up  as  agreed  to,  and  is  as  follows: 

"IV.  'The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church 
of  England,'  shall  continue  to  be  used  by  this  Church, 
as  the  same  is  altered  by  the  Convention,  in  a  certain 
instrument  of  writing  passed  by  their  authority,  entitled 
'  Alterations  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  order  to 
render  the  same  conformable  to  the  American  Revolu- 
tion, and  the  Constitutions  of  the  respective  States.' 

"The  Hon.  Mr.  Duane,  from  the  Committee  for  re- 
vising, etc.,  reported  that  they  had,  according  to  order> 
prepared  a  plan  for  obtaining  the  Consecration  of  Bish- 
ops, and  the  draft  of  an  address  to  the  Most  Reverend 
the  Archbishops,  and  the  Right  Reverend  the  Bishops 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  were  ready  to  report  the 
same. 


186 

"  Wednesday,  5tli  October.  .  .  .  Resolved,  that 
the  Liturgy  shall  be  used  in  this  Church,  as  accommo- 
dated to  the  Revolution,  agreeably  to  the  alterations 
now  approved  of  and  ratified  by  this  Convention. 

"  Ordered,  That  the  plan  for  obtaining  Consecration, 
and  the  address  to  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England  be  again  read;  which  being  done, 
the  same  were  agreed  to,  and  are  as  follows : 

"  First.  That  this  Convention  address  the  Arch- 
bishops and  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  request- 
ing them  to  confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  such 
persons  as  shall  be  chosen  and  recommended  to  them 
for  that  purpose  from  the  Conventions  of  this  Church 
in  the  respective  States.    .    .    . 

"  Fourthly.  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the 
different  Conventions,  that  they  pay  especial  attention 
to  the  making  It  appear  to  their  Lordships,  that  the 
persons  who  shall  be  sent  to  them  for  consecration  are 
desired  in  the  character  of  Bishops,  as  well  by  the  Laity 
as  by  the  Clergy  of  this  Church  in  the  said  States  re- 
spectively ;  and  that  they  will  be  received  by  them  in 
that  character  on  their  return." 

In  this  address  it  is  stated :  "  Our  forefathers,  when 
they  left  the  land  of  their  nativity,  did  not  leave  the 
bosom  of  that  Church,  over  which  your  Lordships  now 
preside  ...  it  was  their  earnest  desire  and  resolution 
to  retain  the  venerable  form  of  Episcopal  Government 
handed  down  to  them  as  they  conceived,  from  the  time 
of  the  Apostles,  and  endeared  to  them  by  the  remem- 
brance of  the  holy  Bishops  of  the  Primitive  Church,  of 
the  blessed  Martyrs  who  reformed  the  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  of  the  many  great 
and  pious  Prelates  who  have  adorned  that  Church  in 
«very  succeeding  age.    The  petition  which  we  offer  to 


187 

your  venerable  Body,  is— that  from  a  tender  regard  to 
the  religious  interests  of  thousands  in  this  rising  em- 
pire, professing  the  same  religious  principles  with  the 
Church  of  England,  you  will  be  pleased  to  confer  the 
Episcopal  Character  on  such  persons  as  shall  be  recom- 
mended by  this  Church  in  the  several  States  here  rep- 
resented. 

"  We  have  stated  to  your  Lordships  the  nature  and 
the  grounds  of  our  application :  which  we  have  thought 
it  most  respectful  and  most  suitable  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  object  to  address  to  your  Lordships  for  your  de- 
liberation before  any  person  is  sent  over  to  carry  them 
into  effect."    .    .    . 

"  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  pub- 
lish the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  with  the  alterations, 
as  well  those  now  ratified  in  order  to  render  the  Liturgy 
consistent  with  the  American  Revolution,  and  the 
Constitutions  of  the  respective  States,  as  the  alterations 
and  new  office^  recommended  to  this  Church ;  and  that 
the  book  be  accompanied  with  a  proper  preface  or  ad- 
dress setting  forth  the  reason  and  expediency  of  the 
alterations." 

Journal  of  a  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  held  in  Philadelphia  Jrom  June  i'Oih  to  June 
2Gih,  17  86. 

"  Thursday,  June  22d,  1786.  Ordered,  That  the  letter 
from  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  England  to  this 
Convention  be  now  read,  and  it  was  read  accordingly 
in  the  words  following :  '  London,  February  24th,  1786. 
To  the  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  etc.  .  .  .  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  hath  received  an  address 
.  .  .  from  the  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  etc.  .  .  . 
directed  to  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  Church 


188 


of  England,  requesting  them  to  confer  the  Episcopal 
Character,  etc.  We  are  now  enabled  to  assure  you  that 
nothing  is  nearer  to  our  hearts  than  the  wish  to  pro- 
mote your  spiritual  welfare — and  the  enjoyment  of  that 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution  which  we  believe  to  be  truly 
Apostolic — we  cannot  help  being  afraid,  that  in  the 
proceedings  of  your  Convention,  some  alterations  may 
have  been  adopted  or  intended  which  those  difficulties 
do  not  seem  to  justify  .  .  .  while  we  are  anxious 
to  give  every  proof  not  only  of  our  brotherly  affection, 
but  of  our  facility  in  forwarding  your  wishes,  we  can- 
not but  be  extremely  cautious,  lest  we  should  be  the 
instruments  of  establishing  an  Ecclesiastical  system 
which  willbe  called  a  branch  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, but  afterward  may  possibly  appear  to  have  de- 
parted from  it  essentially,  either  in  doctrine  or  in 
discipline.' 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  entertain  a  grate- 
ful sense  of  the  Christian  affection  and  condescension 
manifested  in  this  letter :  And  whereas  it  appears  that 
the  venerable  Prelates  have  heard,  through  private  chan- 
nels, that  the  Church  here  represented  has  adopted, 
or  intended  such  alterations  as  would  be  an  essential 
deviation  from  the  Church  of  England,  this  Conven- 
tion trusts  that  they  shall  be  able  to  give  such  informa- 
tion to  those  venerable  Prelates,  as  will  satisfy  them 
that  no  such  alterations  have  been  adopted  or  intended. 

"Monday,  June  26th,  178G.  The  Committee  reported 
a  draft  of  an  answer  to  the  letter  from  the  Archbishops 
and  Bishops  of  England,  which,  being  read  and  con- 
sidered, was  agreed  to,  and  is  as  follows:  While  doubts 
remain  of  our  continuing  to  hold  the  same  essential 
articles  of  faith  and  discipline  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 


189 


land,  we  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  suspending  a 
compliance  with  our  request. 

"We  are  unanimous  and  explicit  in  assuring  your 
Lordships,  that  we  have  neither  departed  nor  propose 
to  depart  from  the  doctrines  of  your  Church.  We  have 
retained  the  same  discipline  and  forms  of  worship  as 
far  as  was  consistent  with  our  civil  constitutions ;  and 
we  have  made  no  alterations  or  omissions  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  but  such  as  that  consideration  pre- 
scribed, and  such  as  were  calculated  to  remove  objec- 
tions, which  it  appeared  to  us  more  conducive  to  union 
and  general  content  to  obviate,  than  to  dispute.  It  is 
well  known  that  many  great  and  pious  men  of  the 
Church  of  England  have  long  wished  for  a  revision  of 
the  Liturgy,  which  it  was  deemed  imprudent  to  hazard, 
lest  it  might  become  a  precedent  for  repeated  and  im- 
proper alterations.  This  is  with  us  the  proper  season 
for  such  a  revision.  We  are  now  settling  and  ordering 
the  affairs  of  our  Church,  and  if  wisely  done,  we  shall 
have  reason  to  promise  ourselves  all  the  advantages 
that  result  from  stability  and  union. 

"  We  are  anxious  to  complete  our  Episcopal  system 
by  means  of  the  Church  of  England.  We  esteem  and 
prefer  it,  and  with  gratitude  acknowledge  the  patron- 
age and  favors  for  which,  while  connected,  we  have 
constantly  been  indebted  to  that  Church.  These  con- 
siderations added  to  that  of  an  agreement  in  faith  and 
worship,  press  us  to  repeat  our  former  request,  and  to 
endeavor  to  remove  your  present  hesitation,  by  sending 
you  our  proposed  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  and 
Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

"  These  documents,  we  trust,  will  afford  a  full  answer 
to  every  question  that  can  arise  on  the  subject.  We 
consider  your  Lordships'  letter  as  very  candid  and  kind ; 


190 

we  repose  full  confidence  in  the  assurance  it  gives ;  and 
that  confidence,  together  with  the  liberality  and  Catholi- 
cism of  your  venerable  body,  lead  us  to  flatter  ourselves, 
that  you  will  not  disclaim  a  branch  of  your  Church, 
merely  for  having  been,  in  your  Lordships'  opinion,  if 
that  should  be  the  case,  pruned  rather  too  closely  than 
its  separation  made  absolutely  necessary. 

Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  Churchy  held  at 
Wilmington,  Del.,  October  10th  and  11th,  1786. 

"  Tuesday,  October  10th.  On  motion  the  letters  re- 
ceived from  the  Archbishops  of  England,  with  the  form 
of  testimonials  and  Act  of  Parliament,  enclosed  and  re- 
ferred to,  be  now  read,  and  they  were  read  accordingly, 
as  follows:  To  the  Committee,  etc.  ...  It  was 
impossible  not  to  observe  with  concern,  that  if  the 
essential  doctrines  of  our  common  faith  were  retained, 
less  respect  however  was  paid  to  our  Liturgy  than  its 
own  excellence  and  your  declared  attachment  to  it  led 
us  to  expect,  not  to  mention  a  variety  of  verbal  altera- 
tions, of  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  which  we  are 
by  no  means  satisfied.  AYe  saw  with  grief  that  two  of 
the  Confessions  of  our  Christian  Faith,  respectable  for 
their  antiquity,  have  been  entirely  laid  aside,  and  that 
even  in  that  which  is  called  the  Apostle's  Creed,  an 
article  is  omitted,  which  was  thought  necessary  to  be 
inserted,  with  a  view  to  a  particular  heresy,  in  a  very 
early  age  of  the  Church,  and  has  ever  had  the  venerable 
sanction  of  universal  reception. 

*'  Nevertheless,  as  a  proof  of  the  sincere  desire  which 
we  feel  to  continue  in  Spiritual  Communion  with  the 
members  of  your  Church  in  America,  and  to  complete 
the  order  of  your  ministry,  and  trusting  that  these  com- 
munications which  we  shall  make  to  you  on  the  subject 


191 

of  these,  and  some  other  alterations,  will  have  their 
desired  effect,  we  have,  even  under  these  circumstances, 
prepared  a  Bill  for  conveying  to  us  the  powers  necessary 
for  this  purpose. 

"  We  most  earnestly  exhort  you,  .  .  .  that  you 
restore  to  its  integrity  the  Apostle's  Creed,  in  which 
you  have  omitted  an  article  merely,  as  it  seems,  from 
misapprehension  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  understood 
by  our  Church  ;  nor  can  we  help  adding,  that  we  hope 
you  will  think  it  but  a  decent  proof  of  the  attachment 
which  you  profess  to  the  services  of  your  Liturgy  to 
give  to  the  other  two  Creeds  a  place  in  your  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  even  though  the  use  of  them  should 
be  left  discreiional. 

"  The  Committee  appointed  last  evening  to  take  into 
consideration  the  matters  contained  in  the  letter  from 
the  Archbishops  of  England,  delivered  in  their  report: 
.  .  .  The  first  question  taken  on  the  report  of  the 
Committee  was  whether  the  words  'He  descended  into 
Hell '  should  be  restored  in  the  Apostle's  Creed  ?  Upon 
the  Ayes  and  Nays 'being  called  for,  the  votes  were  as 
follows :  New  York,  Divided ;  New  Jersey,  Aye ;  Penn- 
sylvania, Divided  ;  Delaware,  Divided  ;  South  Carolina, 
Aye.  So  the  words  are  to  be  restored,  there  being  two 
ayes  and  no  negative.  On  the  question, '  Shall  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  be  restored  in  the  Liturgy  ?'  the  same  was 
unanimously  agreed  to.  .  .  .  It  was  moved  and 
seconded  that  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  draft  a 
letter  from  this  Convention  to  the  Archbishops  of  Eng- 
land, in  answer  to  their  late  letter.    .     .    . 

"This  Committee  retired,  and  after  some  time  re- 
turned and  reported  a  letter  ...  as  follows :  To 
the  Archbishops,  etc.  .  .  .  We  have  taken  into  our 
most  serious  and  deliberate  consideration,  the  several 


192 

matters  so  affectionately  recommended  to  us  in  those 
communications,  and  whatever  could  be  done  towards 
a  compliance  with  your  fatherly  wishes  and  advice  con- 
sistently with  our  local  circumstances,  and  the  peace 
and  unity  of  our  Church,  hath  been  agreed  to,  as  we 
trust  will  appear  from  the  enclosed  account  of  our  Con- 
vention, which  we  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  5^ou, 
together  with  the  Journal  of  our  proceedings.  We 
are,  etc."    ... 

Journal  of  a  Convention  of  the  P.  E.  Churchy  Philadel- 
phia^ July  28th  to  August  8th,  1789. 

"  Wednesday.  July  29th,  1789.  .  .  .  The  Conven- 
tion met.  Ordered,  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Beach,  and  Mr.  Andrews,  be  a  Committee  to  pre- 
pare an  address  of  thanks  to  the  Most  Reverend  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  for  their  good 
offices  in  procuring  the  consecration  of  the  American 
Bishops." 

The  above  verbatim  copy  of  the  Convention  Journals 
of  1785,  6  and  9,  would  seem  to  render  unnecessary  any 
argument  with  respect  to  the  statement  that  the  His- 
torical Episcopate  of  the  P.  E.  Church  was  received 
on  the  basis  of  the  Constitution  and  Prayer  Book  of 
1785  and  6. 

It  was  not  until  a  fourth  Convention  in  October, 
1789,  two  years  and  eight  months  after  Bishops  White 
and  Provoost  were  consecrated,  that  this  Constitution 
and  Prayer  Book,  specifically  stated  in  the  Preface  to 
the  Book,  to  be  based  on  the  Revision  of  1689,  were 
radically  changed  by  a  return  to  the  principles  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Revision  of  Charles  II,  1662,  such  change 
being  made  tlie  condition  of  the  adhesion  of  Bishop 
Seabury  and  the  loyalist  clergy  of  New  England.    The 


193 

American  Prayer  Book,  on  which  the  Episcopate  was 
received,  was  cast  aside  for  the  Anglican,  and  so  re- 
mained until  restored  by  Bishop  Cummins  and  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church,  thus  representing  legiti- 
mately the  Church  of  the  Revolution,  as  well  as  the 
Church  of  the  Reformation,  and  both  together,  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles,  as  nearly  as  we  have  it.  Peace 
and  purity  were  sacrificed  in  order  to  secure  what  has 
proved  a  hollow  uniformity  and  a  source  of  doctrinal 
corruption  and  chronic  schism,  and  finally  ecclesiastical 
disruption. 


